Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Clyde Port Authority, presented by Mr. Ross (under Section 8 of the Act); read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 23rd November and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Building Materials, Scotland

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works to what extent there has been a shortage of bricks or other building materials in Scotland in the last six months.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether there is now a shortage of building materials in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr, James Boyden): There has been no shortage of bricks in Scotland during the last six months. Cement supplies have been satisfactory since the beginning of August. Delivery periods for plasterboard, some ironmongery, and large diameter pipes continue to be longer than is customary.

Mr. Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assessment for plasterboard for the coming six months as regards Scotland?

Mr. Boyden: Plasterboard deliveries have improved. New production is coming into being at the beginning of 1966, and the situation will then improve rapidly.

Ancient Monuments

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works in how many cases he has made recommendations for the preservation of ancient monuments situated under the proposed route of electricity cables, under Section 44 (3) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1926.

Mr. Boyden: I regret that the information could not be provided without an expenditure of time and effort which would not be justified by the small number of cases involved.

Miss Quennell: Is there not a danger that some of our archaeological remains will be irreparably lost or damaged in the course of transmission works, and will the hon. Gentleman consider ways by which a more efficient and flexible system could be adopted by the Departments so that we can protect these remains while it is still possible?

Mr. Boyden: There is very close collaboration between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and my Department. If the hon. Lady knows of a specific case in which a monument is threatened in the way she suggests, perhaps she will let me know, and we will look into it.

Building Materials

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is satisfied that serious shortages of all building materials have now been overcome; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir, except for plasterboard, but supplies of this should improve in 1966.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the main building materials showing how many months' supply there was in October, 1964, and the current position?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend will consider that.

Palace of Westminster (Improvements)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why stage three of the roof scheme of improvements to the Palace of Westminster has been postponed, and for how long; and why the factors causing the postponement have not resulted in a change of completion date for the Star Chamber Court scheme.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell): The start on stage three would have meant my going to the Chancellor for £80,000 when there was a general retrenchment. Postponement is to April, 1966. The contract for the Star Chamber Court scheme had already been let prior to the Chancellor's measures.

Mr. Cooke: Is not this just juggling with figures, and will not hon. Members be inconvenienced by the putting off of this vital stage three of the roof scheme?

Mr. Pannell: No, Sir. The Answer to another Question will show that we have not been tardy in recognising the needs of Members.

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will state the total sum expended upon improvements to the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster in the years 1952 to 1964; and how many square feet of accommodation have been made available to hon. Members, Ministers and the House of Commons Library by virtue of this expenditure.

Mr. C. Pannell: Just over £300,000 to provide 3,750 sq. ft. of additional accommodation for Members, 2,100 sq. ft. for Ministers, and 4,150 sq. ft. for the House of Commons Library. That makes about 6,000 sq. ft. for Members.

Mr. Cooke: Does the Minister agree that on the present rate of progress, if it is kept up, hon. Members will be pretty well off in about five years?

Mr. Pannell: That sounds all right, but if the hon. Gentleman will look at what has been done since he will see that we have done very much better in the

last 12 months. Schemes in progress or planning will give 14,000 sq. ft. of usable office space at a cost of £460,000. Details of this are as follows: the south block of the roof space to be completed at the end of this month, which will provide an additional 3,400 sq. ft. of space for Members and possibly 1,700 sq. ft. for the Fees Office; and the new Star Chamber Court building, due to be completed in the early part of 1967, which will provide a further 9,000 sq. ft. of usable office space.

National Federation of Clay Industries

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on his official discussion with representatives of the National Federation of Clay Industries on 23rd September, 1965.

Mr. C. Pannell: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement issued after the discussion. I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Allason: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of today's Daily Mail in which, under the heading "The plan that dropped a brick", it is suggested that the National Federation of Clay Industries will be faced at the end of the year with a very disturbing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot question the Minister on something for which the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible.

Mr. Allason: May I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the plans of the industry for a very substantial increase in production will go ahead or whether it is true that they will be postponed?

Mr. Pannell: That is up to the industry. I consider that I have given it all the necessary assurances. In any case, I am not prepared to reduce the amount of house-building that is being carried out by industrialised building methods. That was one of the suggestions made. Industrialised building must be allowed to play its part alongside traditional building methods to enable the best possible use to be made of the labour available and to ensure maximum output.

Construction Industry

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will give the figures for the value of orders of new work by contractors in the construction industry in August 1965 and the seasonally adjusted index figure for August 1965, taking 1958 as 100.

Mr. Boyden: The provisional figure is £218 million. The adjusted index 148.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Are not those figures lamentable and is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that if the Government's present policy in this matter continues—reinforced by building licences—the industry may find itself facing a quite serious situation?

Mr. Boyden: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is "No, Sir." The sharp fall in the figures in August must be taken to be the result of the July measures. These were intended to reduce the demands on the economy and to reduce the load on the construction industry, which had too much work in hand.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many insured operatives aged 15 years and over, excluding administrative, technical and clerical workers and self-employed operatives, were employed by contractors in the construction industry in July 1964; and what was the equivalent figure for July 1965.

Mr. Boyden: 1,151,000 in July 1964, and 1,121,000 in July 1965.

Mr. Costain: Does this drop in numbers not indicate that there is something wrong in the industry, which we were assured would expand? How does the Parliamentary Secretary equate the industry's expansion with this drop in figures?

Mr. Boyden: For a start, there are 4,000 fewer unemployed. There are also 10,000 more people in the categories which the hon. Gentleman excluded, which is making for very efficient production in the industry. There must be some men who transfer to factories producing industrialised building components.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT the value of new orders obtained by contractors in the construction industry at current prices for each month of 1965; and what were the equivalent figures for 1964.

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Costain: Could not the Parliamentary Secretary give an indication of what the figures show?

Mr. Boyden: In the first eight months of this year the total value of new orders held by contractors was about £2,066 million, at current prices, compared with £1,979 million in the corresponding period of 1964.

Following is the information:


CONSTRUCTION VALUE OF CONTRACTORS' NEW ORDERS AT CURRENT PRICES


Great Britain

£ million



Total New Work


Date
1964
1965


January
258
245


February
232
252


March.
230
319


April
266
258


May
235
254


June
257
239


July
288
281 (P)


August
243
218 (P)


September
243



October
274



November
270



December
227



Total
2,993



(P) = Provisional.

Brick Stocks

Mr. Carlisle: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) if he will give the figure for the number of bricks in stock at the end of September 1965;
(2) what he anticipates will be the number of bricks in stock at the end of the year 1965.

Mr. C. Pannell: Stocks of bricks at the end of September amounted to 233 million. I think they may rise to nearly 350 million by the end of the year.

Mr. Carlisle: Would not the Minister agree that this tremendous increase in the stocks of bricks during September, and the further vast increase forecast for the end of the year, exposes a really scandalous situation in which the industry


has increased its output at the specific request of the Minister, only now to find that it has done it on a forecast which has been proved to be wholly wrong and incompetent?

Mr. Pannell: To answer the last part of that supplementary first, when I met the brickmakers on assuming office they told me that it took about three years to step up production—that is, to get new plant going and so on—and we have been in office for only about 12 months. The figure of 8,400 million for this year's production includes a figure of about 300 million for normal reserves. This is about one and a half day's supply and there was a severe shortage in the industry when I assumed office.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In view of the Minister's hopeless failure to make a forecast even over a few months, how does he intend to restore the industry's confidence in relation to the five-year planning envisaged in the National Plan?

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman has as yet not even a nodding acquaintance with the industry. He will find that when I met the industry it was not lacking in confidence.

Mr. Manuel: To give an accurate picture of the position to the House, would my right hon. Friend state the number of days' supply of bricks held at the end of September and the number of days' supply the industry will be holding at the end of the year?

Mr. Pannell: Stocks of.bricks at the end of September represented about 11 days' supply. By the end of the year they should represent about 16 days' supply. When I took office there were about two or three days' supply of bricks in stock.

Historic Buildings

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many public events are planned for 1966 at historic buildings in his charge; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyden: Twenty-one such events have been agreed, or are being considered.

Captain Elliot: Is the Parliamentary Secretary really satisfied with this pro-

gramme? Would he not agree that this country is very well endowed with historic buildings of great beauty and that many of them are not being put to adequate use? Would he not also agree that if we increased this programme greatly it would very much assist the growing and important tourist industry?

Mr. Boyden: We are indeed proud of our historic monuments and buildings and we consider sympathetically all cases that are put to us. However, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must bear in mind that in some historic monuments activities of this sort interfere with the residents who live in or near them.

Sir J. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many new publications relating to historic buildings in his charge are planned for 1966.

Mr. Boyden: Twenty-six.

Sir J. Rodgers: In view of the importance of tourism to help in our balance of payments, is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that his Department is doing enough to publicise the historic buildings under his care? Can he further state whether those pamphlets and guides will be published in other languages than English and, if so, which are these languages?

Mr. Boyden: I shall gladly send the hon. Member the list, but, on the whole, productivity under this Government has been much better than under the previous Administration. At the end of 1965 we shall have produced 27 guides of the sort he has mentioned, while in 1964 only 14 were published. As the chairman of the committee dealing with the matter, I have this very much in mind.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will hold consultations with the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the improvement of the protection of the surroundings of historic buildings and ancient monuments.

Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend is not aware of a need for any further special consultations with the Minister of Housing and Local Government but if the hon. Member has any particular


difficulty in mind perhaps he would let me know.

Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to implement the resolution of the Council of Europe on this?

Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend has power, under the Ancient Monuments Act, to protect the scheduled area of any ancient monument, and the protection of ancient buildings is the responsibility of the local authority and the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Industrialised Building

Mr. Handing: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further discussions his department has conducted with local authorities in the London area on the use of industrialised building.

Mr. Boyden: None, Sir, because the National Building Agency for which my right. hon. Friend is responsible undertakes the detailed, technical discussions.

New Buildings, Whitehall (Traffic)

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why he has proposed two new blocks of buildings for Whitehall before Her Majesty's Government have produced definite proposals for the traffic in the area; and what steps he is taking to implement Professor Buchanan's scheme for removing through traffic from this area.

Mr. C. Pannell: These buildings can be planned without prejudice to the traffic proposals. I am now awaiting the outcome of the Greater London Council's studies on these.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is it not really putting the cart before the horse not to deal with the terrible traffic problems which we have outside this building as part of the general scheme for these plans? Would that not give confidence to the public, for does not the public want to see done what it can most easily see needs to be done?

Mr. Pannell: What is now apparent to the hon. Gentleman was as clear as daylight to me a long time ago. If he considers the statement which I made in July he will see that I indicated then that these traffic studies were proceeding. They are still proceeding. As I have said, if

the consideration of this plan needed a traffic study beforehand then, of course, we would have undertaken one. However, the Martin-Buchanan proposals, including those of Professor Colin Buchanan, showed us that that was not so.

Mr. Channon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said last week that he hoped to make a further statement? When will he make that statement, for does he realise that this is a matter of great importance to all hon. Members?

Mr. Pannell: I told those concerned that the hon. Gentleman, and all other hon. Members, are interested and I told them to hurry it up.

Restrictions of Building (Inquiry)

Mr. Grant: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) what representations he has received from the Royal Institute of British Architects regarding the findings of their inquiry into restrictions on building, details of which were received on 13th October 1965; and whether he will make a statement;
(2) what representations he has received from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers regarding the findings of their inquiry into restrictions on building works, details of which he has received; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. C. Pannell: I met these bodies and a statement was sent to the Press. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

Mr. Grant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and for sending me a copy. Nevertheless, is he aware that these reports reveal a serious state of affairs, with over £500 million worth of orders having been cancelled between July and September, a downtrend in output by the end of 1966, and that 7 per cent. unemployed in architects' offices is anticipated by the end of the year? What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to halt this trend?

Mr. Pannell: I did not accept all the assumptions. Nor did I accept the basis on which they were made. As a matter of fact, we have made a careful analysis of all these figures. For example, it is customary for a great deal of work, in normal times, to get on to the drawing


board but to get no further. This figure ran into many millions of pounds. It was included in the statistics when I met those concerned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Are not the cancellations in this case on a much larger scale than in previous years and is it not a fact that, in the face of this anticipated falling-off of work in this industry, it is madness to impose building licensing on top of it?

Mr. Pannell: It is difficult to answer these complicated matters in reply to a supplementary, but I will try to do so as shortly as possible. Broadly speaking. last year there was overheating in the industry to the tune of about £100 million. It would have been £140 million this year. To take up the slack which will become apparent next year, I have already announced that I am prepared to receive applications for building licences in advance of the Bill and that I will let the most urgent projects through the pipeline. [Interruption.] That is what we call planning.

New Embassy, Rome

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what are the reasons for the delay in building the new embassy in Rome; and when he hopes to proceed with the project.

Mr. C. Pannell: The same reasons which caused the postponement of many public projects in this country.

Mr. King: Will the Minister bear in mind the desirability especially in Rome of adequate architecture in which to house the British Mission?

Mr. Pannell: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in this. I am sensible that in a city of great historic beauty this country's representatives should be housed in a fitting building. We have accepted this in principle, and I hope that the work will start next September.

Government Offices, Bridge Street-Richmond Terrace Site

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what considerations he took into account in arriving at his decision that the design of the Government offices on the Bridge

Street-Richmond Terrace site should be entrusted to his Department.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to reconcile his proposal for a new building on the site at Parliament Street with the proposal in the Martin Report that the area should be developed in conjunction with the other side of Whitehall; and whether he intends to appoint a third architect to plan the building on the other side of Whitehall to replace the Great George Street Government offices.

Mr. C. Pannell: My Department will have to analyse the users' needs for all these buildings and to work out with Sir Leslie Martin the planning principles that are to govern the development as a whole. This experience will be carried through into the design of the Bridge Street office building which will be the pilot project for the entire complex.
It is too early to consider who should design the new offices on the Great George Street site, but the general planning principles will also be applied to them and to the new building on the Foreign Office site.

Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman sticking to the statement he made on 3rd November that the design of the Government offices on the Bridge Street-Richmond Terrace site will be done by his Department? If so, will be bear in mind the very poor effort which the architects in his Department have made of many buildings overseas in the past few years? Would it not be better to open the design to world competition rather than to have it done by architects in his own Department?

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman is on very dangerous ground sometimes when he attempts adverse comment on the relationship between public and private architects. I may tell him that, in certain cases, I have some very valid objections to both.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this area forms part of one side of Parliament Square and that it is vital for the Government to do a little more in the way of coordination?

Mr. Pannell: My Department has designed many important buildings


throughout the world, which must have escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle). But, again, I would say that I am as sensitive as anybody here to what is required of any Minister of Works planning a site of that description.

Mr. Strauss: Would not the Minister clarify the position? Is it the fact that the other three important parts of this project are to be done, one by a selected architect and one by an architect chosen by competition, but that this key position, of immense importance and with immense problems, is to be dealt with by the architects in his own Department? Is he satisfied that this is the right thing to do, and would he not consider it again before making a final decision?

Mr. Pannell: I have made the decision and the Government have accepted the decision, and it is seemly that my Department should do this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If I had put it out that an unspecified private architect was to do it, hon. Members opposite would probably have agreed without knowing who he was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Competition."] There is to be competition for a part of the total development. I think that there is a great deal of architectural talent concentrated in my Department.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While casting no aspersions whatever on the very able architects in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, surely, as has been pointed out, the crucial importance of this site to the whole of this part of London means that the right hon. Gentleman should have the widest possible field of choice in selecting the architect for the task. Will he not, whether he has made a decision or not, have the good sense to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Pannell: I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman is an authority on good sense. As a matter of fact, I have had this under a great deal of review. I have had a good deal of professional advice of all sorts. A decision had to be taken by someone, and it has been taken.

Mr. Royle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg

to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why he proposes to seek the services of two different architects to plan adjoining buildings for parliamentary and Government offices in the area bounded by Bridge Street, Parliament Street and Richmond Terrace.

Mr. C. Pannell: As I said in my statement of 3rd November, we need to draw on a range of architectural talent both in my own Department and in private practice.

Mr. Goodhew: But what efforts is the right hon. Gentleman making to be quite certain that this will form an integrated whole with Parliament Square when it is finished?

Mr. Pannell: We are, of course, retaining Sir Leslie Martin as principal consultant. I answered the Question in part in the Answer I gave to a previous Question, that my Department has designed many important buildings throughout the world and we have unique experience in planning for the uses and needs of others. It seems to me that with the principal consultant we shall get the degree of unification, integration and harmony of design to which both the hon. Gentleman and I aspire.

New Parliamentary Building (Architects)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what consultations with the Royal Institute of British Architects he held before arriving at his decision to limit the selection for the architect of the proposed new Parliamentary building to architects from the Commonwealth; and if he will now reconsider this decision.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what consultation he had with the authors of the Whitehall Plan before reaching his decision to limit the selection for the architect of the proposed new Parliamentary building to architects from the Commonwealth.

Mr. C. Pannell: I held no formal consultations with either the Royal Institute of British Architects or Sir Leslie Martin,


but both have informed me that they support my proposal for a Commonwealth competition.

Mr. Channon: Would not the Minister agree that this is probably the most important site ever to be planned in this way, and is it not absolutely vital that it should be planned by the best architect in the world, no matter from what country he comes? Would he not further agree that in his Answer to me last week he implied that he and I were liberal-minded and that others were not? Who are the others who are stopping him from taking the right decision in the matter, and will not he reconsider the decision?

Mr. Pannell: I still hold the view that the hon. Gentleman and I are more liberal-minded than others. ' For instance, I could imagine quite a lot of people behind him who would not agree with his point of view—and a lot of people behind me. But it does seem to us, after all consideration, that it is appropriate that something within the centre of the Commonwealth should be left to a Commonwealth architect. The hon. Gentleman should not have grumbled. I have no doubt that if his hon. Friends had remained in office there would not have been any competition at all but merely selection.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The one thing certain is the Minister's ego, which has remained unchanged. Why is he so chauvinistic in this matter? Why does he not look at the subject again? Surely, the Commonwealth itself, which has a pride in this building and its precincts, would want the very best the world can offer.

Mr. Pannell: That occurred to me, but it still seems to me, for a lot of reasons, that it is appropriate that the work should be left to a Commonwealth architect. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that, at the end of the day, one does not quite know what architect one will get—or of what nationality. That is not the only reason, but it seems to us that if we throw it open to the whole of the Commonwealth we are going wide enough in this context.

Private House Building, 1966

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what esti-

mates his Department has received of the number of private houses likely to be started in 1966.

Mr. Boyden: Amongst builders building on their own initiative, the last Ministry inquiry revealed that in 1966 they would start about the same number as in 1964. Assuming a similar pattern amongst builders building for clients, the number would be between 230,000 and 240,000.

Mr. Channon: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that after all the Government's boasting about the housing programme, it is rather sad that in 1966, after two years have gone by, they will be building no more private houses than in 1964? And what does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Boyden: The whole matter is being very carefully discussed. I have no doubt at all that when the final results emerge they will be very satisfactory.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Of the private houses mentioned in the Question, will the Minister say how many are likely to be built in 1966 in Scotland, and in which parts of Scotland? Will he issue a statement on that subject?

Mr. Boyden: I hesitate to rush in on Scotland without adequate notice.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether failure to increase the number of houses privately built is deliberate or inadvertent?

Mr. Boyden: More houses will be built this year than were built under the previous Administration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Disabled and Sick Service Men (Pensions)

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will introduce legislation to provide for disabled and sick discharged soldiers and sailors the right to rehearing of an application for a pension, on new medical evidence being available.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbison): As my hon. Friend knows legislation is


not needed to enable my Department to re-examine cases which have not been the subject of a decision by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal and we are always willing to do so. Even where a P.A.T. has found against a claimant, he has a statutory right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law and if, exceptionally, new medical evidence later becomes available which throws fresh light on a case, there is a well recognised procedure by which it can, by consent, be remitted for rehearing. I am satisfied that this procedure, which is well known to the British Legion, is in the best interests of the claimant; and before considering any changes in the adjudication arrangements for war pensions I should wish to consult them.

Mr. Hale: Is the Minister aware that there is not one hon. Member on either side of the House who has not had cases of disabled soldiers who have lost their claims because they could not find medical evidence at the time, that this Question does not deal with points of law, that this procedure by way of appeal is exceedingly expensive and costly and that people cannot always take advantage of it, that a Measure to rectify this anomaly was introduced in the last Session and that no hon. Member on either side of the House raised his voice against it, and that it was defeated by her own implacable opposition? Would she explain why?

Miss Herbison: I am sure that my hon. Friend must realise that, in getting justice for disabled ex-Service men, there is no conflict between him and me. What I want to ensure is that justice is done to every disabled ex-Service man. I understand that the British Legion value the flexibility of the present arrangements, whereby we have the "consent-remit" procedure. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall have discussions with the British Legion and the other ex-Service men's organisations to find out their views, in order that, at the end of the day, there will be justice for every disabled man in this country.

Mr. Wood: Will the right hon. Lady agree that various improvements have been made in this procedure over the years? Will she accept the assurance that any further improvements which she can make which would increase the justice

done to these men would have the full support of the House?

Miss Herbison: Certainly.

Mr. Gower: Would the Minister agree that the present arrangements to which she refers seem to give the benefit to the Ministry rather than to the claimant? Would she look at that?

Miss Herbison: I am certain that the present arrangements do not give the benefit to the Ministry. Where there are questions of doubt, in almost every instance the disabled ex-Service man gets the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Hale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Byssinosis

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in view of the state of the existing law on the subject, what proposals she has for dealing with sufferers from byssinosis.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): Industrial injuries cover for byssinosis was extended as recently as a fortnight ago to cover flax spinners in processes up to and including carding. My right hon. Friend has no further proposals at present.

Mr. Hale: But is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, once again, a Measure supported by the cotton textile unions in Oldham and elsewhere was introduced and defeated by the implacable hostility of the Minister during the last Session, that, out of a fund of £100 million in 1964, figures show that only one male person got 100 per cent. pension for byssinosis and that I constantly submitted evidence of tragic cases of people who had been defeated by this faulty medical definition? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Davies: I do not agree with at least the middle part of my hon. Friend's argument. The position is that the Industrial Advisory Council made a comprehensive review of the position in 1955,


as a result of which the present Regulations were introduced. The Council subsequently, in 1960, considered whether occupational cover for cotton workers should be extended, but found no evidence then to support this view. The extension of cover to flax spinners in the agreed processes was again made following the Council's recommendation. There is no evidence at present that any of the Regulations has been defective so far as our present medical knowledge of byssinosis is concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Corned Beef

Mr. van Stranbenzee: asked the Minister of Health whether, in response to representations from the National Grocers' Federation and others, he will now order the small stocks of suspect corned beef remaining in private hands to be destroyed.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): This would not be justified on health grounds since the stocks could be rendered safe for human consumption.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that this question refers back to an answer by the Parliamentary Secretary on 1st November, which appeared to indicate that there were stocks in private hands in respect of which he had not received assurances that they would not be released to the market?

Mr. Robinson: I know that there is public concern about this matter but I am advised that, provided it is reprocessed by an approved method, this meat would be safe for human consumption. The representations of the hon. Gentleman's Question were made to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and any Question about withholding of these stocks on commercial grounds should be addressed to him.

Mr. Lipton: As the Government have taken care to ensure that by far the greater part of this consignment shall not come on to the market, why are they so reluctant to take drastic action in the case of this small section which is in private hands?

Mr. Robinson: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that no relevant cans from the canning establishment associated by the Committee of Inquiry with the Aberdeen typhoid outbreak will be disposed of in this country for any purpose.

Lady Tweedsmuir: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement the other day that there could be no guarantee that these stocks would not be released for human consumption, does the Minister's statement today mean that he can guarantee that none of this particular corned beef will be released for human consumption, whether processed or not, in this country and whether reexported or reimported?

Mr. Robinson: It depends what the noble Lady means by "this particular corned beef". The reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) related to the relevant cans from the establishment associated by the Committee of Inquiry with the Aberdeen outbreak. The noble Lady will be aware that many more cans were voluntarily withheld from sale pending that inquiry.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister not aware that recent outbreaks of peculiar and unexpected diseases in various parts of Britain make this matter of great national concern? Will he take powers to see that such suspected beef or imported food is destroyed?

Mr. Robinson: I am not sure to what peculiar diseases my hon. and learned Friend is referring, but I know that there has been no suggestion that any of the recent outbreaks of any disease have been associated with corned beef or typhoid.

Mr. Wood: What consultations are going on between the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is this not the kind of decision which ought to be taken by the Government as a whole?

Mr. Robinson: The decisions which I have announced are those of the Government as a whole. I am concerned only with the health aspects of this and, on health grounds, I am satisfied—as my original Answer made clear—that the stocks can be rendered quite fit for human consumption. But withholding on commercial grounds is a matter for my right


hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, with whom I have been in constant touch throughout this matter.

Severely Disabled Patients (Mini-cars)

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the Minister of Health what priority he has assigned to the provisions of specially adapted mini-cars instead of three-wheeled one-seater vehicles for all severely disabled National Health Service patients in relation to other desirable improvements in National Health Service facilities.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to his Question on 29th March last.

Mr. Woodhouse: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend if he recollects 18 months ago, when he was in:he position of Opposition spokesman on health matters, writing a letter to a disabled constituent of mine, Mr. Peter McBride, in which he was strongly critical of the present position and attacked the Conservative Government for maintaining it, and asked whether it was at that time the standard reply?

Mr. Loughlin: I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard what the hon. Member has said, but may I assure the hon. Member that this matter is to be reviewed early next year? It is continually under review and the review will continue next year and we shall do what we can when the time comes.

Mr. Bagier: Will my hon. Friend look especially at this problem in view of the social implications? Will he look closely at the circumstances where a disabled individual is not allowed to have a partner in the car, or even a friend, in cases of breakdown? Will he especially look at this matter from that angle?

Mr. Loughlin: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am very conscious of the social implications of the present position, but in the review we shall make we shall have to take into consideration not only those who are in receipt of these vehicles but also those who so far have not been able to receive a vehicle even though they have been disabled.

Mr. Bessell: Will the hon. Gentleman take account of the fact that a four-wheeled vehicle is not only safer for the passenger and the driver but also for pedestrians and other road users? Will he give this matter urgent attention?

Mr. Loughlin: I shall certainly give the matter urgent attention, but I ought to make quite clear to the House that we are satisfied that the present three-wheeled vehicle is safe both for the pedestrian and the user of the vehicle, provided it is reasonably used and maintained at maximum efficiency. I should not like anyone to be under the impression that it is unsafe.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that even with a mini-car getting a wheel-chair on to the car poses a great problem, whereas with a Ford Anglia or Morris 1000 a chair can be put aboard?

Mr. Loughlin: We take into account the problem of loading and unloading an invalid chair and so far as humanly possible we do whatever we can to assist pensioners and patients, and this will be taken into account in any review.

Home Help Service, The Hartlepools

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Minister of Health how many home helps are available in West Hartlepool and Hartlepool, respectively; what is the number of applicants for home help service, and the number receiving such service; and how many in-patients in the Hartlepools Group of Hospitals could be relieved of hospital care if home help service was available for them.

Mr. Loughlin: Sixty-three and 15 (in whole-time equivalents); 504 and 101: 484 and 101, respectively. Information on the last part of the Question is not available.

Mr. Leadbitter: Can my hon. Friend say that during the present general review of the services this service will be given special attention particularly in relation to the latter part of my Question? Will he agree that this matter is of importance and that it ought to be the policy of the Department he represents that people ought not to stay in hospitals for too long when the home help service could be made available to them?

Mr. Loughlin: I should not like to try to answer the last part of my hon. Friend's Question in reply to a supplementary Question because in-patients may need more than home helps and it would be necessary to have a very searching inquiry before answering that point. My hon. Friend may like to know that the ratio of home helps per thousand of the population in both West Hartlepool and the Hartlepools is higher than the national average and it is predicted that in 1973 it will still be higher than the national average.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Broadmoor Hospital (Staff)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Health what hours of overtime at plain-time rates are being worked per week by the staff at Broadmoor Hospital; and whether he will make a statement on the staff shortage there in the light of the security considerations involved.

Mr. K. Robinson: An average of 692. There are vacancies for 49 male and nine female nurses in a total complement of 370. Thanks to the skill and devotion of the staff, very high standards of security are maintained.

Mr. van Straubenzee: While quite understanding the Minister's difficulty in recruitment, does his Answer not show that the imposition of the 42-hour week last July has been largely nullified by the shortage of staff to implement it?

Mr. Robinson: No. The implementation of the 42-hour week has meant that the staff have been working one and a half hours a week less, in other words, the overtime has gone up by only half an hour following the reduction of hours by two hours.

Hospital Beds, London and Middlesex

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health how many hospital beds there are in the area served by the former London and Middlesex County Councils; how many are governed by teaching hospitals and how many are under the administra-

tion of regional hospital boards; and what estimate he has made of the number which are likely to be transferred to teaching hospitals in the next year.

Mr. K. Robinson: In National Health Service hospitals, 51,639; of these 15,654 are administered by boards of governors of teaching hospitals and 35,985 by regional hospital boards.
I am considering further proposals for transfer of beds to teaching hospitals, but have not yet made any decisions.

Mr. Pavitt: Whilst recognising the tremendous efforts my right hon. Friend is making to get more doctors in teaching hospitals, may I ask him to bear in mind the long-term cogent reasons for the integration of teaching hospitals with the regional hospital boards?

Mr. Robinson: When the time comes to consider the long-term aspects of the administration in the London area I shall bear the views of my hon. Friend in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND CORPORATION (PAYMASTER-GENERAL'S DUTIES)

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Paymaster-General what are his duties ex officio as treasurer of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation; and whether these include responsibility for the investment portfolio.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): The Answer, Sir, to the first part of the Question is "Nil personally"; the answer to the second part is "No, Sir".

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask why his duties are nil when it is laid down by Act of Parliament that he has duties as treasurer of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation?

Mr. Wigg: The Act of Parliament appoints the Paymaster-General ex officio. The hon. Member asked what my duties are in that connection and they are nil. The position is exactly the same as for my 35 predecessors since the Act was passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Discrimination in Employment (I.L.O. Recommendation)

Mr. Park: asked the Minister of Labour why Her Majesty's Government has not stated its policy towards the International Labour Office Recommendation on Discrimination in Employment 1958; and if it will now do so.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): The present Government fully accept the general principle of both the Convention and Recommendation on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation that there should be no unfair discrimination in the field of employment. We are, however, not able to ratify the Convention as industrial practice in the United Kingdom is not entirely in accordance with its provisions.

Mr. Park: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he agree that there is abundant evidence of racial discrimination in industry which is increasing and that only by extending the provisions of the Race Relations Act to apply to employment practices is this trend likely to be arrested?

Mr. Thornton: My Department's employment exchange managers have full instructions not to condone discrimination on race or colour under any circumstances.

Mr. Freeson: Perhaps, therefore, my hon. Friend will explain why certain managers of employment exchanges are initiating inquiries with employers as to whether they will take coloured people or not, and not waiting for employers to submit their own discriminatory recommendations to them?

Mr. Thornton: I am not aware of that, but if my hon. Friend will give me details I shall certainly have them looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR-FREE ZONES

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has put forward for nuclear-free zones in Africa, Latin America or Central Europe.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): As a general principle we would welcome the creation of nuclear-free zones in certain areas and provided the appropriate conditions are fulfilled.
We are therefore watching with interest the efforts being made by African and Latin American states in this direction, but this is a matter primarily for the states concerned. Before a nuclear-free zone could be established in central Europe, a number of preconditions would have to be met. These include progress towards a political settlement in the area and in particular of the German question.

Mr. Campbell: The answer, therefore, appears to be "No". Have the Government taken any action on this proposal, which appeared on page 21 of the Labour Party's manifesto?

Mr. Thomson: I have stated our general welcome in principle for the idea of nuclear-free zones. We are following closely the efforts being made by a number of States in this direction. In particular, our Ambassador in Mexico City attended as an observer the last meeting of Latin American States to consider this.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Would the Minister of State recommend to his right hon. Friend that he should lay a White Paper before the House on this important matter, on which many proposals have been made by Ministers in Governments of both parties over the last ten years?

Mr. Thomson: I will consult my right hon. Friend about my right hon. Friend's suggestion.

Lord Balniel: As the Labour Party manifesto states that the Labour Government will put forward constructive proposals for establishing nuclear-free zones in Africa, Central Europe and Latin America, and as in the many speeches he has made the British Minister at the Disarmament Conference has never once referred to this matter, are we to assume that it has been given a very low priority?

Mr. Thomson: I have just told the House that we welcome in principle the idea of nuclear-free zones and I have explained the kind of conditions in which we think this idea can be advanced. We think that nuclear-free zones could make


a very useful contribution to bringing about non-proliferation, to which we attach the highest importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of increasing British commercial, technical and cultural links with the Common Market, he will approach the President of the European Community with a view to arranging more frequent visits by Members of Parliament to the offices of the European Community in Brussels.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley): It is primarily for hon. Members to make their own arrangements to visit the European Economic Community at Brussels. I believe that the European Economic Community Commission would welcome any Members who wish to visit the headquarters of the Community, and I shall consider whether anything could be done to encourage such visits.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister of State for that reply. Will he do his utmost to ensure that as far as possible large numbers of Members of this House and of other legislatures in Western Europe are able to meet more frequently to discuss this important matter?

Mr. Padley: The members of the European Parliament are members of their national legislatures, and through the I.P.U. and other organisations there is a good deal of interchange. There is also an overlap between the membership of the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union. Therefore, I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he asks for.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENOCIDE CONVENTION (STATEMENT)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will announce Her Majesty's Government's decision concerning the question of United Kingdom accession to the Genocide Convention; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Thomson: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government have now decided that the United Kingdom should accede to the United Nations Genocide Convention. Since this Question raises very complex issues I will, with permission, arrange for a full statement to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir B. Janner: May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for having now made this declaration, which is of considerable interest to the whole civilised world and in particular to the Jewish communities of the world? May I ask my hon. Friend whether he realises that this is an endorsement of lifelong steps which were taken by Professor Lemkin, the whole of whose family were exterminated in concentration camps? All of us are extremely grateful for the Answer my hon. Friend has given.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I welcome the announcement made by the Minister of State and fully realise that he is to publish a statement on this matter. However, in view of the great technical problems involved in this matter, problems which exercised his Department over a considerable time, could he give us an assurance that these difficulties are now completely removed?

Mr. Thomson: Yes. As the noble Lady has said, the difficulty here was, in effect, a conflict of principles between our tradition of granting asylum to political fugitives and our desire to accede to this Convention, which the former Government said that they had accepted in principle. We believe after a fresh examination of these difficulties that they are not overriding. I think that when the noble Lady has studied the statement she will feel reassured that the traditional right of asylum for the genuine political fugitive is not prejudiced.

Following is the Statement:
As the House is aware the principal difficulty faced by successive Governments in this matter has stemmed from Article VII of the Convention which provides that offences of genocide should not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. It was felt that this provision together with the wide definition of genocide in Article II, as extended by the list of related offences in Article III, might place unacceptable limits on the right to grant political asylum. Her Majesty's Government have, however, now reached the conclusion that this difficulty is not overriding.


Accession to the Convention need not involve depriving the Home Secretary of the power which he has under existing legislation to refuse to order surrender in any case where the charge has been clearly fabricated in order to secure the return of an offender who is in reality wanted for political offences for which extradition would not otherwise be granted. On the other hand, in cases where a person has in fact committed an offence of genocide of the kind which the Convention requires to be punished, even if he can be shown to have been inspired by political motives, it would in our view be wrong in principle that he should be able to claim asylum on these grounds. Her Majesty's Government desire to do all in their power to prevent the abominable crime of genocide, to ensure that those who commit this crime are brought to justice, and to co-operate with the United Nations in its struggle to secure universal respect for human rights. They therefore intend at a suitable opportunity to introduce legislation to bring our domestic law into line with the Convention, in particular by ensuring that all the offences described in the Convention are covered by our criminal law, and to ensure that accession to it takes place as soon thereafter as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALTIC AND HUNGARIAN BONDHOLDERS (CLAIMS)

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position of the negotiations for the settlement of the Baltic Bondholders' claims, the Hungarian Bondholders' claims, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Soviet bloc countries claims; and if he will receive a deputation to discuss these matters.

Mr. Padley: Negotiations with the Soviet Government on outstanding post-1939 claims on both sides were resumed in Moscow on 13th October and continued until 1st November, when it was agreed to have an interval to enable both delegations to report to their respective Governments.
On the Bonded Debt claims against Hungary, I have nothing to add to my Written Answer of 26th October.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government towards financial claims against the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe, and towards any claims they have against us, is the same as our policy towards any other country, namely, to try to reach a satisfactory settlement as soon as possible.
On the hon. Member's last point, there are many people who have an interest

in these various claims. I hope to get into touch with the hon. Member soon about the possibility of a deputation being received at the Foreign Office.

Sir W. Teeling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. With regard to the Hungarians, I fully realise that the matter is still confidential, but will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, according to my information, the Hungarians are prepared fully to service the loans which they received after the First World War from us, and since we are not pressing the Russians at the moment on the pre-First World War Czarist Bond problems, will he deal similarly with the Hungarian post-1919-20 problem and clear that before going on to the pre-First War debts?

Mr. Padley: Since the Hungarian discussions have been confidential, it would be much better if at present I said no more about the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAYS COMPANY (CLAIM)

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the recent decision of the Argentine Supreme Court confirming that of the Appeal Court concerning Argentina's indebtedness to the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company, what steps he proposes to take to support the claims of the Company for a settlement out of court; and what is the present position.

Mr. Padley: Discussions between the Argentine Government and the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company for an out-of-court settlement are now in progress. The Argentine Government are well aware of the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to a settlement of the Company's claim. Her Majesty's Government will continue to give the Company such support as may be appropriate.

Sir W. Teeling: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether our Embassy in Buenos Aires is at present helping this company, because in the old days when these problems were raised the Foreign Office always said that, once the Supreme Court had agreed that we were in the right, it would do everything it could to press the claim?

Mr. Padley: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the Embassy in Buenos Aires is carrying out the policy as enunciated from this Box.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to control Question hour against a background of chattering.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Land Commission (Staff and Accommodation)

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what steps have been taken to ensure the necessary staffs and accommodation in anticipation of the implementation of the Government's proposals set out in the White Paper on the Land Commission.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Arrangements are well in hand for designating staff and earmarking accommodation.

Mr. Jones: Why have not these duties been added to those of the district valuer's office?

Mr. Skeffington: The Valuation Department will be carrying out such part of the Commission's work as deals with valuation.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cesspools (Untreated Sewage)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what evidence he has of danger to health from the tipping of untreated sewage from cesspools on to lands adjoining residential property.

he Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): There is no specific evidence that the spreading of cesspool contents over land is a significant danger to health; but it is certainly undesirable, especially where there are houses nearby.

Mr. Hall: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that in certain rural areas,

notably in my own, it is the custom to spread untreated sewage on to fields which very often are in close proximity to residential areas and that in certain parts of my constituency there have been outbreaks of dysentery in places of this kind which the local population attribute to this custom? Can he convince the people that there is no danger to health from spreading untreated sewage in this way?

Mr. MacColl: I do not think there is any danger to health, but my right hon. Friend would not hide the fact that he regards it as an undesirable practice.

Dr. Bennett: If the official view is that the tipping of untreated sewage is not a danger and is not to be deprecated, does not that amount to saying that cesspools are in fact unnecessary?

Mr. MacColI: I did not say that the practice was not to be deprecated. In fact I said that my right hon. Friend did deprecate it. I said that there was no convincing evidence that it was a danger to health.

Sir R. Thompson: Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary look at this matter again? Does he realise that a few years ago the discharge of untreated sewage into the sea caused a major scandal and gave rise to grave doubts as to whether this really was a safe practice? Might not the same considerations apply when it is spread over land?

Mr. MacColI: The discharge of untreated sewage into the sea has not been found to be a danger to health. It has been found to be a very unpleasant practice which as far as possible should be avoided.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Alfred James Wellbeloved, esquire, for Erith and Crayford.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Central Africa

Mr. Anthony Fell: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 1st December, I shall call attention to the situation in Central Africa, and move a Resolution.

Areas of High Unemployment

Mr. S. O. Davies: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 1st December, I shall call attention to the urgent need of redeploying industries to those areas with high unemployment, especially those mining areas where pit closures are threatened, and move a Resolution.

Cervical Cancer (Cytology Services)

Mr. Clifford Williams: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 1st December, I shall call attention to the need for the speedy provision of cytology services for the detection of cervical cancer, and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED

COAL INDUSTRY

Bill to make provision with respect to borrowing by, and loans by the Minister of Power to, the National Coal Board; with respect to the capital reconstruction, and the; application of certain funds, of that Board; for the making of grants with the object of accelerating the redeployment of the manpower resources of that Board and the elimination of uneconomic colliery capacity; with respect to pensions or compensation for certain persons who have been members of that Board; and for connected purposes; presented by Mr. Lee; supported by Mr. George Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ross, Mr. J. Griffiths, Mr. MacDermot, and Mr. John Morris; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PECUNIARY INTERESTS) (SCOTLAND)

Bill to amend section 73 and 102 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947; presented by Mr. Ross; supported by Dr. Dickson Mabon; read the First time; to

be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK

Bill to enable deposits in a post office savings bank to be received for investment in securities, and at rates of interest, other than those authorised by the Post Office Savings Bank Act 1954; to amend the provisions of that Act as to the making and receipt of deposits; and for purposes connected with those matters; presented by Mr. Benn; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Joseph Slater; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings upon Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed; and that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act which has been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Bowden.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SOUTHERN RHODESIA BILL)

Motion made,
That the requirements of Standing Orders Nos. 83 (Certain proceedings relating to public money to be initiated in committee) and 87 (Procedure on motion for charge on public revenue) and of the practice of this House relating to the imposition of charges upon the people shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of any provisions of the Southern Rhodesia Bill or of any Amendment thereto moved by a Minister of the Crown which authorise expenditure or the imposition of any such charge; and that immediately after the Bill to which this Order applies has been read a Second time it shall be considered in Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bowden.]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Question put and agreed to.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Southern Rhodesia Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

3.36 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Eiwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It may be helpful to the House if I begin by endeavouring to place the Bill in the context of the present legal situation in Rhodesia. I do not need to remind the House that the purported declaration of independence on Thursday last by the then Government of Rhodesia and the subsequent handing down of a new Constitution by Mr. Smith and his associates were illegal, ineffective, and in all respects invalid. The House will also bear in mind that Mr. Smith and the rest of the former Ministers have been dismissed from office. Accordingly, the present position, as I see it, is as follows.
The Government of Rhodesia is Her Majesty acting through the Governor who is appointed by Her Majesty. This is the broad position, and it corresponds to that which obtains in all British Colonies, of which Rhodesia is one. But the powers of the Governor of Rhodesia are much circumscribed by the Constitution under which he acts. In the first place, he has not himself legislative power. The power to enact laws rests with the Legislative Assembly, but, of course, the Governor must assent to any Bill before it can take effect as law.
The executive power in Southern Rhodesia is vested in Her Majesty and— I am quoting from the relevant Section of the Constitution, Section 42:
may be exercised on Her Majesty's behalf by the Governor or such other persons as may be authorised in that behalf by the Governor or by any law of the Legislature.

The Governor's executive powers derive from the Constitution. For example, he appoints the Ministers and the judges; he summons or prorogues, or dissolves, the Legislative Assembly, he exercises the prerogative of mercy, and so forth.
Secondly, he exercises the executive power under a number of Southern Rhodesian laws. But the Constitution requires the Governor, broadly speaking, to exercise his powers in accordance with the advice of his Ministers. However, as I have said, there are now no lawful Ministers in Rhodesia.
I will add a word about the third function of government—the judicial function. The Constitution of Rhodesia gives the judges security of tenure. They cannot be removed from office, except for inability to discharge their functions or for misbehaviour.
The House will have read with pleasure the statement reported in today's Press and made by Rhodesian judges yesterday that the judges of the High Court will continue to perform their duties in accordance with the law. There can be no doubt whatsoever what the law means in this context. It means the law of Rhodesia as established by and under the Constitution of 1961, or, of course, any Act of this Parliament.
I now turn to the Bill. Its first purpose is expressed, as the House will see, in Clause 1, and it is purely declaratory. The Clause declares that Southern Rhodesia remains a part of Her Majesty's Dominions and that the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom have the responsibility and jurisdiction hitherto existing in respect of it. I will say a word in a moment in explanation Of the expression "Government of the United Kingdom" which is contained in this Clause.
The second purpose of the Bill is to give Her Majesty's Government power to make any Orders in Council which may appear necessary or expedient as a result of the rebellion with which we are now faced. The Orders in Council which the Government have in mind, besides one relating to the Constitution, will deal with a number of matters about which I will say a word in a moment.
I will first deal with what the Government have in mind in regard to the Constitution. As I have said, the Governor has no legislative powers. It


is therefore proposed to fill this gap by conferring on Her Majesty full legislative powers to be exercised by Order in Council. At the same time it is proposed to render invalid any action by the Legislative Assembly of Rhodesia since 11th November. In regard to executive power, it is proposed to do two things— first, to provide that the executive authority in Southern Rhodesia may be exercised on Her Majesty's behalf by the Secretary of State; and, secondly, it is proposed to free the Governor from the limitation imposed on him by the Constitution to which I have already referred —that is to say, that he is bound in general to act in accordance with the advice of his Ministers. This may not be strictly necessary as at present, as I have said, there are no lawful Ministers, but it may be as well to make the position transparently clear.
Looking at the Bill in greater detail, I think that I have already explained the purpose of Clause 1. I want to say only a few words about the phrase "Government of the United Kingdom". These words have been expressly chosen for a number of reasons. The House will have in mind the words which are customarily used by this Parliament when it passes an Act to give independence to a Colony. The recent Malta Independence Act is a good illustration. It provides that
Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Malta.
On this occasion we are are asserting exactly the contrary proposition. We therefore say that the Government of the United Kingdom maintains responsibility and jurisdiction in respect of Rhodesia.
Secondly, the phrase "the Government of the United Kingdom" in the case of Rhodesia has important implications. The first is that British Ministers do advise the Queen on a number of constitutional matters relating to Rhodesia, in particular the appointment of a Governor and amendment of the Constitution under Her reserved powers. The second is that the Government of the United Kingdom are responsible for Rhodesia's external affairs and has, for instance, been answerable in the United Nations for what has been going on in Rhodesia.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) indicated on Friday that he

would prefer a reference to the Crown. This certainly, if I may say so, would be technically correct. But it would not establish the points which I have just made with the necessary clarity.
Clause 2 is the main Clause of the Bill. It confers powers to make the Orders in Council which have become necessary as a result of the illegal declaration. Under Clause 2(1), such Orders in Council may make such provision in relation to Southern Rhodesia as appears to Her Majesty in Council to be necessary or expedient. The particular purposes for which that general power is to be used are set out in subsection (2) of the Clause. First, the Bill gives power to make Orders in Council for suspending, amending, revoking or adding to any of the provisions of the 1961 Constitution. As a result of the illegal declaration, although the constitutional status of Rhodesia remains as it was before, it has become necessary for Her Majesty's Government to take power to operate some of the constitutional functions and to ensure that measures which the illegal regime may purport to effect under the Constitution have no validity. Given the situation with which the Bill deals, powers of this sort are necessary, in my submission, but it is impossible to see the precise use which may have to be made of them.
For example, it will be necessary to provide that no laws may be made by the legislators of Southern Rhodesia and no business may be transacted by its Legislative Assembly. Provision will be made for the Secretary of State, by order in writing under his hand, at any time to prorogue the Legislative Assembly. In addition, it is contemplated that power will be conferred upon him to exercise or control the exercise of such of the executive functions of the Government of Southern Rhodesia as he may consider expedient.
The House will know that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the debate on Friday, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to suspend the 1961 Constitution at this stage. Indeed, the Bill does not give the power to do so. Clause 2(2,a), as the House will see, refers to suspending, etc.
 any of the provisions of the Constitution 
It does not permit the total suspending or revocation of that Constitution or the


making of a new constitution. The House will also note—lest that contention may not be entirely acceptable—that Clause 3(3) states in terms that
the expiration of Section 2 of this Act shall not affect (b) the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia 1961 as in force immediately before the expiration of that Section.
That subsection clearly implies that the Constitution will remain in force albeit with such modifications as this House and Orders in Council may have made, and a similar argument applies to revoking any of the provisions of the Constitution.
Clause 2(2,6) provides for modifying, extending or suspending the operation of existing United Kingdom legislation in relation to Southern Rhodesia or persons or things belonging to or connected therewith. The position arising from the illegal declaration has made it necessary, first, to remove Southern Rhodesia from the position of privilege which it enjoyed as a loyal Colony and, secondly, to make special provision for the protection of loyal Rhodesian citizens. The powers in this subsection will enable Her Majesty to remove Rhodesia from the Commonwealth Preference Area, by an amendment of the Import Duties Act, 1958, and to confer on loyal Rhodesians additional rights to obtain citizenship by an amendment of the British Nationality Act, 1948.
As I said the other day, it is also proposed to restrict the return of alleged fugitive offenders to Rhodesia by amending the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, so as to enlarge the discretion given to the Secretary of State and to give a similar discretion to Colonial Governors in respect of fugitive offenders whose return is claimed.
Orders in Council under Clause 2 (2,c), which is also admittedly in broad terms, may also impose restrictions on transactions relating to Southern Rhodesia. Under this power it will, for example, be possible to make the requisite Order relieving the Minister of Agriculture from his obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to take an annual quota of sugar from Southern Rhodesia. Such an Order would also cancel the current contract under which the Sugar Board has agreed to buy sugar from Rhodesia in pursuance of the Agreement. No other Orders in pursuance of this power are at present

contemplated, but, as the House will understand, it may be necessary to impose further prohibitions or restrictions at a later stage. In the presence of rebellion, we can never be sure what course the rebellion may take or what steps may be necessary to deal with it.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Is it intended that this power of varying enactments will relate to Section 3 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, which places very severe limitations upon criminal liability?

The Attorney-General: All I can say at the moment about that matter is that it is under active consideration. I do not think I can say any more at the moment.
I should point out that the Orders in Council which may be made under Clause 2 may apply extra-territorially. The House will see the relevant words in the last four lines of page 1 of the Bill. The Orders may apply extra-territorially in the sense that they may regulate or prohibit actions in foreign countries or on the high seas by persons who are amenable to our laws. This means that if, for instance, a United Kingdom citizen sought to evade the provisions of this Clause by entering into the transaction with the illegal Government in a foreign country, he would still be caught by the provisions of this Clause.
Clause 2(3) authorises Orders in Council under Clause 2 to include necessary consequential provisions, and it provides that such Orders may be made to take effect from 11th November, 1965, that is to say, the date on which the illegal declaration was made. The House will accordingly see that this permits a certain, though a limited, measure of retrospection. That is regretted on this as on all occasions, but the House may think that it is necessary in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, with the sudden pronouncement, in the very course of negotiations, of a declaration of independence. In my submission, this power is necessary to enable us to establish beyond doubt the invalidity of certain actions taken in Southern Rhodesia since the declaration of independence. An example is the new constitution which the illegal regime has pretended to give to the Southern Rhodesian people.
Subsection (4) permits subsequent revocation or variation of Orders in Council. Subsection (5) requires that Orders in Council under Clause 2 shall be laid before Parliament after being made. Unless during the 28 days following the making of an Order it is approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament, the Order will expire. The intention of this subsection is to provide that each Order in Council shall be effective as soon as it is made and to ensure that as soon as practicable the House has a full opportunity to debate the provisions of the Order and to signify approval. If an Order were to continue in force for 28 days without being approved, it would, of course, lapse.
I am able to assure the House—and I suspect that the House will want this assurance—that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to provide early opportunity for Parliament's consideration of all Orders which are made under the Clause, and, of course, in particular the all-important Order relating to the Constitution.
Clause 3 provides that this Measure will be of temporary duration. Clause 2, which, as I have explained, is the operative part of the Bill, will expire at the end of one year after the passing of the Bill, unless it is continued in force by an Order in Council, which must be laid in draft before Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House before it can become effective.
Orders in Council under Clause 2 will lapse when that Clause itself expires and laws that have been modified by such Orders in Council, such as the Fugitive Offenders Act and the British Nationality Act, will then revert to their previous form. But the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia will retain the form which it has immediately before the Clause expires—that is to say, it will remain as modified by any Order in Council under Clause 2.
As to the last Clause, the House will observe that, although the Bill gives power to extend Orders in Council to dependent territories as well as to the British Isles, this is only for the purpose of effecting an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament extending to those territories or for making provision relating to British ships and aircraft.
I hope that I have set out sufficiently the reasons for the Bill and have explained its various provisions. I have sought to show—and I am confident that the House will accept—that the Bill is necessary and necessary now. It may be that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may think that the Bill gives the Government powers that are too wide. But I must say, with all the emphasis at my command, that Her Majesty's Government feel that it is imperative to ask Parliament now for adequate powers to enable them to deal with a dangerous situation, the future course of which it is not possible now to forecast with any degree of certainty.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, could he give an assurance that no Order in Council will be introduced which the Government believe is not capable of being fully implemented?

The Attorney-General: The Government will introduce such Orders in Council as in their opinion they deem necessary to deal with the situation and will expect all loyal Britons to rally to the law, whether in this House or in Rhodesia.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Before my right hon. and learned Friend sits down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Attorney-General has sat down.

4.1 p.m.

Sir John Hobson: No one can deny the gravity of the situation which faces the country. I should like to acknowledge that the country has a difficult problem to deal with both in relation to Southern Rhodesia and the responsibility of the Crown, the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom for Southern Rhodesia, and to the international situation which is developing in relation to this problem. Both these are matters of which every right hon. and hon. Member must be fully conscious.
Certainly the Opposition are fully conscious of them and, therefore, believe that in these circumstances Parliament should help the Government to take special powers for dealing with this emergency. We are anxious, in these


difficult and dangerous days, to maintain the national unity which we have had heretofore, the national unity which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has spoken for up to now and which was emphasised from these benches on Friday in the debate which is a background to the Bill and the problem that confronts us.
We on this side recognise the Government's need for special powers in this situation, that they need them quickly and that they will need them during the period of the emergency. The Attorney-General made clear, as is obvious, that it is the intention of the Government to take these powers only for the purpose of dealing with the emergency and as an interim measure, and that any long-term solution, particularly a constitutional solution, for Southern Rhodesia must be found by further legislation in this Parliament and is not to be sought by the use of powers being given under the Bill.
We recognise, too, that no one can say exactly how the situation will develop. Anything may occur. For that reason it is obvious that the Bill must be drawn up in reasonably wide terms. It is for these reasons that we do not oppose the Bill in principle. We are very ready to help it on its way. We trust that the House can pass it expeditiously and soon, and we hope that the national unity can be maintained.
We as an Opposition are ready to give our support to this Measure. We hope that this will assist in re-establishing a constitutional and legal Government in Rhodesia, and also that it will show to the world and those who are anxious about the determination of Britain to deal with this problem, that this country, which is responsible for dealing with the problem, can be left to deal with it.
We are grateful to the Government also for advising us in advance of their intention to introduce the Bill and for giving some of us the opportunity to see it. We are particularly grateful that, after the discussions we had, they have acceded to some of the suggestions we made, and I am sure that this will assist the passage of the Bill. First, we are very grateful that they agreed that the Orders in Council should be subject to affirmative and not to negative Resolution. I am sure that

this is important. Obviously, in a matter of this sort, Parliament should be in control of all these Orders and the affirmative procedure is the right way to deal with it.
We are also grateful for what the Attorney-General said today and the Prime Minister said the other day about the expedition with which important Orders will be brought forward for discussion in Parliament. As we understand it, the Government contend that any Orders which the Opposition regard as of particular importance or difficulty should be brought forward not only promptly but at a reasonable time of the day for discussion by the House. I am sure that this will assuage many doubts there may have been about the wisdom of having a 28 day period.
Of course, there may be many matters of a technical and abstruse nature, such as patents, for instance, which have to be dealt with by Orders in Council, and I do not suppose that anyone would insist that they should be dealt with in seven days, otherwise we should be spending the whole of our time in dealing with these matters in a constant stream. But I am sure that the Government and Opposition are in agreement that the really important matters are the matters which are likely to cause high questions of policy and difficulties and will, therefore, be brought before the House promptly and at a reasonable hour.
We are also grateful for what the Attorney-General has said about the suspension and revocation of the Constitution. There have been anxieties about whether it is right that the 1961 Rhodesian Constitution should be suspended for long periods or, indeed, should be revoked. We understand of course now that the Government are not intending either to rewrite the Constitution as a whole or to suspend it as a whole or to revoke it as a whole.
When the Solicitor-General replies, we should like to hear that the alterations that will be made in the Constitution will be only such as are immediately necessary to deal with the immediate situation and that there will not be an attempt, by these powers, to rewrite the whole Constitution and then, under provisions which the Attorney-General has explained, in Clause 3(3,6), leave Rhodesia


lawfully under a Constitution which has been largely or wholly rewritten by use of emergency powers. We understand the Government not to intend that, but we should like the Solicitor-General to be good enough to clarify the point.
Clause 1 is declaratory, I suppose, for the purpose of international law, the law of the United Kingdom and the law of Rhodesia. How do the Government see the position upon a matter on which the Attorney-General has apparently been making some pronouncements in relation to whether or not these Ministers who have usurped power in Rhodesia are or are not guilty of treasonable activities? The question has already been indicated by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in his reference to Section 3 of British Nationality Act, 1948.
As I understand the position, of course primarily any of those who are acting illegally or who are usurping power in Rhodesia are subject to Rhodesian law. I am afraid that I am not an expert on Rhodesian law, but I understand that neither the Treason Act, 1351, nor the Treason Felony Act, 1848, apply in Rhodesia. The system of law there is Roman-Dutch, and how far the Attorney-General is an expert in Roman-Dutch law I know not. But are we to understand that under Rhodesian law those who usurp power are guilty of a particular offence there equivalent to treason? Perhaps the Solicitor-General can explain that.
There is, of course, the Rhodesian Act of Parliament, the Preservation of Constitutional Government Act, 1963, which the now illegal Ministers passed in order to prevent other people from subverting the Constitution which they themselves have now subverted. To that extent I understand that they would appear to be guilty of an offence under that Act.
I turn now to a matter of great interest to the House, the position under United Kingdom law. Are Mr. Smith and his Ministers in Rhodesia guilty of treason, or treason felony, or any other offence punishable under United Kingdom law? Does not that depend on whether they are Rhodesian citizens or citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies? As I understand the matter, if they are Rhodesian citizens and are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, then

they are not guilty, by virtue of Section 3 of the 1948 Act, of any offence against the laws of the United Kingdom.

The Attorney-General: indicated assent.

Sir J. Hobson: I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman assenting. Perhaps his right hon. and learned Friend will deal with this important matter. It may have only the jurisdictional effect of determining whether such Ministers can be tried at the Old Bailey or must be tried in Rhodesia; but we should have this matter clear and the House and the country should know the extent to which any of these Ministers may be committing an offence against United Kingdom law.

The Attorney-General: Our understanding and information is that about half the members of the illegal Government are citizens of the United Kingdom.

Sir J. Hobson: I am grateful for that information. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will deal with the position as he sees it and will say whether I am right about the criminal liability in this country of those Ministers who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton): This seems to be a matter of some importance. We have the example of Brigadier Skeen, whose treason was committed here, if it be treason, and who is a citizen of this country. If it be treason, then surely all who assisted and promoted his escape on Saturday are also guilty of treason. Can we have an assurance that they will be prosecuted and that no fear of favour will be shown, even if they should turn out to be members of Her Majesty's present Government?

Sir J. Hobson: I do not think I ought to be under an obligation to answer that question. I willingly hand it across the Table to the Solicitor-General who will no doubt be answering it. I am not the person to say whether anybody will be prosecuted for offences which occurred last Saturday, but that observation certainly raises a very interesting question. As I understand the position though, if any United Kingdom citizen has assisted in the unlawful seizure of power in Rhodesia, whether in Rhodesia or here, he will almost certainly be guilty of an offence against the 1848 Treason Felony


Act and may possibly—although this is much more doubtful—be guilty of the more important treason under the 1351 Statute. Certainly there is a distinction between those who are Rhodesian citizens and those who are United Kingdom citizens. It is right that the House should understand the position, even though in the end it may come back only to the question of whether certain individuals should be prosecuted in Rhodesia or in London.
Last Friday I raised the issue of whether Clause 1 ought not to refer to the Crown instead of to the Government. I hope that its wording will not be a precedent for references to what are really the responsibilities and jurisdictions of the Crown. I regard this wording as a bad precedent. We do not wish to hold up the Bill, and this is far too important an occasion to indulge in an argument in Committee on the exact wording which should be used, and for that reason we shall not pursue it, but I would have been very much happier if the reference had been to the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom. The present wording may give some assistance to Mr. Smith who is now saying that the Governor of Rhodesia, who is Her Majesty's representative there, is really only the representative of the Prime Minister and his Government in this country. In this instance it is much better to refer to the Crown. All the difficulties which the Attorney-General mentioned would have been easily overcome by references to the Crown, or would not have arisen, because the Government in this country are in any event advisors to the Crown in all these matters.
This may be a technical matter, but I hope that this precedent will not be followed in future. Another difficulty arises. Who knows how wide a Government is? Anyone who has attended an eve of Session dinner given by the Government knows how wide "Government" goes. What on earth have junior Whips in the House of Lords to do with Rhodesia as members of the Government in the discharge of their ordinary duties?
I turn now to Clause 2. I do not think that it is right now to discuss the details of the constitutional Orders. The

Attorney-General was good enough to indicate the form which they would take and we shall discuss all the Orders when they come up. Naturally we reserve our right and our position to examine each of them to see what it contains and to criticise it. It would not be right on this occasion to give any indication of what attitude we shall adopt, although, of course, we shall be willing to help all those Orders which are properly made and obviously necessary.
I have dealt with the question of the affirmative Resolution under Clause 2, and I am glad that undertakings have been given to bring forward important Orders promptly and at a reasonable time of the day. However, there is another matter on Clause 2 which causes anxiety. This arises in the last three lines of subsection (5).

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman addressing the House as though it were a Committee and dealing with Committee points rather than the matters of principle which should be raised on Second Reading?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is out of order, I will call him to order.

Sir J. Hobson: The Bill, as drafted, provides that in calculating the 28-day period no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days. This is in very sharp distinction to our own Emergency Powers Act, 1920, which provides that an affirmative Resolution has to be passed within seven days and further provides that if Parliament is prorogued or adjourned for a period which will not have expired more than five days after Her Majesty makes a proclamation there is a duty to recall Parliament and Parliament must be recalled.
This may be of some importance as time goes on, for we may have a prolonged adjournment or prorogation, and, of course, when we get to next summer— when we hope that the whole of the emergency will be over, although it may not be—it would be possible for the Government to lay an Order at the end


of July which Parliament would have no opportunity of affirming until November. To that extent these emergency powers would be being used over a prolonged period without any authority from Parliament.
I ask the Government to consider giving an undertaking in the same way as their undertaking about important Orders being brought forward promptly, so that if there were Orders of importance which the Opposition regarded as important and requiring discussion they would recall Parliament if it were prorogued or adjourned for any prolonged period which would otherwise prevent discussion. We can agree that there may be many small and technical Orders dealing with minor administrative matters when it would be absurd to recall Parliament, and we certainly do not suggest that Parliament should be recalled from a long adjournment for every Order made. But I would have thought that for important Orders of principle, particularly those which disturb the Opposition and which require discussion, the Government would undertake to terminate any prolonged adjournment or prorogation of Parliament.
I have only one other point, and that is on the use in Clause 2 of the word "revoke". If one thinks that there is a provision in the 1961 Constitution that is unnecessary during the emergency one can suspend it. As I understand the Bill, a part of the Constitution which is suspended only would, on the expiration of the Bill and by the operation of Clause 3, be revived. If one revoked a provision of the Constitution, on the other hand, the expiration of the Bill would not revive it because it would have been revoked permanently.
Why is it necessary to take powers to revoke parts of the Constitution permanently instead of merely suspending them, because if the whole object of the exercise is to provide only for the interim, surely we can deal with the interim period by a suspension? One can amend the Constitution for the interim period, and the amendments will continue. But what parts of the Constitution do the Government think they are going to revoke permanently so that even after the expiration of the Bill those sections will be revoked? Would not the powers of

suspension be quite adequate, and why is it necessary under this interim Bill to take powers to do something permanently, when there is already power to amend and power to suspend?
Could the Government not give an undertaking not merely that they will not revoke the whole Constitution, but that they will not revoke permanently any major or important features of the Constitution, that they will only suspend it for the period of the emergency and then deal with the matter by legislation thereafter?
I appreciate that to some extent those are matters of detail, but if on Second Reading we could have assurances that are satisfactory, I am sure that it would greatly assist the passage of the Bill through the House and perhaps obviate the necessity for any Committee stage at all.
As I say, we certainly have no objection in principle to the Bill. We recognise its necessity, we recognise its urgency, and we recognise that this country has a long and creditable record for dealing with the problems of the Colonies. We hope that not only the House but everyone in Rhodesia and everyone outside this country and Rhodesia will recognise the unity of the House in the Opposition's supporting the Measure in trying to deal with the grave crisis that faces the nation.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The House recognises overwhelmingly the need for the Government to take wide powers, and most of us are ready to give them whatever powers they ask for in the matter.
All the same, when they come to specify the particular powers that they take, it would be for the House to consider the advisability of each one of the Orders on its merits. I think that we all understand that, because we are doing responsible and unusual things, and the fact that we give a general power to do them does not in any way enable us to abdicate our responsibilities for the precise things which they do.
All I am saying is that the House desires overwhelmingly, though there may be some exceptions, to give the Government in principle the power to do


what they think necessary in these extremely difficult circumstances. If I intervene now, it is only to ask three questions of principle which seem to me to be important and difficult to raise on subsequent occasions when the actual Orders are brought before us.
The first is that I understand my right hon. and learned Friend to say that under the Bill they would have no power to suspend the whole of the 1961 Constitution. I cannot follow that. I speak with great diffidence, but, on the wording of the Bill, I should have thought that they had ample powers. If one looks first at subsection (2) of Clause 2, they make provision
for suspending, amending, revoking or adding to any of the provisions of the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia 1961 ".
If one takes power to revoke or to suspend any of the provisions, for example, it must involve the power to revoke or suspend all of them. As far as I am concerned, I take no exception to that. Whether the Government would think it right to do so is a matter for them to consider and for us to consider when they come to us with the actual Orders which they ask the House to approve. But it seems to me that the Bill, if passed in its present form, would enable them to revoke or suspend all the provisions. That must be the inevitable outcome of taking power to suspend any of the provisions.
If there were any doubt about that, I would draw attention to the fact that subsection (2) of Clause 2 is expressed to be:
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)",
and subsection (1) says:
Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provision in relation to Southern Rhodesia … as appears to Her to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any unconstitutional action taken therein.
Even if I were wrong on the subsidiary point arising under subsection (2), which is without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), as a direct consequence of subsection (1) there is power to revoke or suspend the whole of the 1961 Constitution if the Government wish to do so.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, apart from the legal point which he is making,

we would rely on what the Prime Minister himself said on Friday:
We have no intention, as things are, of suspending the Constitution as a whole. Certainly, we should need very compelling reasons, which would first be put to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 626.]

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will see, if he recollects what I said, that I am not now dealing with the merits or demerits of suspending the whole of the Constitution. I am dealing with the point which my right hon. and learned Friend was making, that under the Bill the Government would have no power to do it. I am questioning that. I am saying that under the wording of the Bill, they would have ample power to do it if they saw fit. Whether we should think fit or not is a matter for discussion later on, but if I am right, I would not like the Bill to be accepted by the House under any mistaken notion that the Government would not have power to suspend the 1961 Constitution if they thought it necessary to do so within the terms of subsection (1) of Clause 2. That is my first point. I do not want to be too long about it, and I do not think that it is necessary to say any more about it.
The second question that it occurred to me as being worth while to ask was as to the generality of the power to amend the British Nationality Act in order to enable loyal citizens in Southern Rhodesia to become citizens of the United Kingdom instead of citizens of Rhodesia.
How far does that go? There are four million Africans in Southern Rhodesia, all of whom may be considered to be loyal for this purpose. Is it the Government's view that if any of them or all of them thought it necessary, for protection against intimidation, tyranny or oppression of any kind by the de facto illegal administration now operating in Southern Rhodesia, to claim British citizenship, they would be able to do so under the powers which the Government now take to amend the British Nationality Act, 1948, for that purpose.
That brings me to my third point, and that is the point about protecting loyal subjects in Southern Rhodesia against the disloyal and illegal exercise of power against them. This applies to a great many people, black and white. There are


quite a number of white settlers in Southern Rhodesia who do not agree with Mr. Smith, and I quite understand that everybody will want to do everything in their power to protect them. Some of them are suffering restrictions already. What are we going to do about that?
I am talking about the white ones; I shall come to the others in a moment. What are we doing to protect them against restrictions merely because they oppose this illegal and usurping Administration's objections? I am thinking of Mr. Garfield Todd, and there are no doubt others. There is Mr. Baron, and others whom I do not need to list. We all know the sort of white settler in Rhodesia to whom this point might apply.
The principal point that I have in mind concerns the four million African citizens in Southern Rhodesia. By reason of illegal measures taken by Mr. Smith's Administration, all these people are subject at the moment to infringements of their liberty. They are not allowed to meet. They are not allowed to express opinions. They are not even allowed to know what is going on. It is an offence to tell them what is going on. It is an offence for them to listen to what is going on if anybody is courageous enough to try to tell them. A fortiori, if they do anything in pursuance of their duty and loyalty to this country, they are a long way off, and they are subject to powers which the illegal Administration would not hesitate to exercise. What do the Government have in mind for the protection of these four million coloured loyal subjects of this country in circumstances where it is only their loyalty that places them in danger? Many of us would like to have some idea of what the Government have in mind on this point, because one has to remember that the whole trouble arises out of the permanent denial to these four million subjects, these four million British citizens, or citizens of Southern Rhodesia, of ordinary, normal, equal citizenship and rights.
The whole trouble arises out of that, and if the state of emergency is going to inure to their disadvantage—and I am using very mild words—only because of their loyalty to the laws of this country, then it is incumbent on this House, which in this Bill is asserting its duty and its

power to govern the whole of Southern Rhodesia, to do something to protect them.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but can he suggest any method by which all these four million people can be given the facilities which he is suggesting, bearing in mind that they are six thousand miles away?

Mr. Silverman: I could answer that question. I could suggest quite a number of things that could be done, but I am not sure that I would be in order in doing so. One could think of much more stringent sanctions than the Government are imposing, even if one went no further than that.
If any of these four million people were to rise in revolt, not against this House, not against Great Britain, but against a gang of people whom by this Bill we are declaring to be traitors, to be pursuing treasonable activities, what would happen? Supposing they do their duty? It may well be their duty—certainly if it is in their power it will become their duty—to assert their own power against Mr. Smith and his colleagues. One would like to know whether, under this Bill, they will be committing any illegal act, or whether this country, or the Government of this country which by this Bill are asserting, and rightly asserting, their responsibility for their protection, would do anything against them?
More, would we do anything to assist them, or would we disclaim all responsibility in that connection? Would we wash our hands of them? Would we say,"This is nothing to do with us "? I ask that because it is no good granting a Government's claim to be the sole Government of a country unless they are prepared to do their duty as a Government with regard to all the inhabitants of the country of which they are claiming to be the rulers.
That is a point which the House of Commons has to bear in mind when it is facing this matter seriously and responsibly. It is all very well to say, as has been said on more than one occasion from both Front Benches, that we must preserve law and order. What does preserving law and order mean? Does it


mean submitting to a treasonable Government, or does it mean resisting them? Or does it mean doing neither and being merely acquiescent? A great many people might prefer to acquiesce, and no doubt no one would blame them if they preferred to take no risks, but not all of them would adopt that attitude. Some of them may do what men and women of all ages and of all colours have done throughout the history of the world— defend themselves and their liberty against anyone who is determined to attack it, no matter what risks they may take.
One cannot say to them, "Do not do it because you cannot succeed ". We did not say that in June, 1940. We would have no right to say it to the Africans in Southern Rhodesia today. I have spent the whole of my political life saying that force is no remedy. I still say that force is no remedy, and I am not appealing to the Government to use force at this time. I think it would be wrong, and I think it would be injudicious. I think that it would be ineffective, and that it would add to the dangers of the situation. I am not blaming them for that. I am making a different point.
Suppose people who are subject, as we are not, to this illegal tyranny decided to defend themselves? My ideas about the use of force are not binding on them, and why should they be? They would be free to do it, and what I would like to know from the Government is whether they would take steps against those people, take steps for them, or wash their hands of the whole matter and say, "Fight for yourselves and we will come to your rescue if you win ". I do not think that many of us would be satisfied with that, and I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but I should like to have some assurance on these points before we part with the Second Reading of the Bill.

4.40 p.m.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: It is extremely disagreeable, when a State is in external danger or difficulty—as ours now is—to put oneself in a posture which might seem grudging in support of one's Government. I have no such intention. What we are—I was going to say fighting for—struggling for, standing for, is said to be law and order. I agree with the

hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) that—putting the matter in his words, as nearly as I remember them—it is all very well to say that what we are after is law and order, but what is law and order?
I suppose that in this place one may be forgiven for assuming that a great part of it, and a great factor for it, in the past and in the future has been, will be, and is the authority of this House. With respect to the learned Attorney-General, I do not take the view that his two statements—one the other day and one today—cover all the points about which the House ought to be better informed and more reassured than it yet can be. I am not for a moment being hostile when I say this, but I do not think that he can be said to have covered all the points.
There is therefore a duty—and a greater duty, because of my first sentence and because of the wide agreement between the two Front Benches—upon any one on the back benches who feels any doubt at all about any part of the Bill, to do his best to question the Government upon it. I make this statement with the more confidence because I have lived to see all this before. One of the few poor consolations of senility is that one has seen all the worst films round at least once before.
On the last great occasion there were very few people then and now still in the House who took any particular interest in this question. That occasion was the 1939 war and just after. One is the present Solicitor-General, who took an honourable and active part, and another, who took a less large if not less honourable part, is the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I also took some active part in these matters then. If three-quarters of the present Members of the House had been through all that, the enthusiastic acquiescence—if there can be enthusiastic acquiescence—of what has been said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would not come so easily.
In the context of this kind of Bill— which is an adjectival procedural thing— none of the points which I shall raise can be called, save from the latitude of Aberdeen, mere Committee points: they add up to a Second Reading speech. I hope that if Amendments are put down I shall be the shorter in my references to those


points in dealing with such Amendments, should any of the points that I am making prove to be Committee points as well as Second Reading points. I propose to put them now, or most of them—with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—in the order in which they occur in the Bill.
My first point deals with the short notice that we have had, signalised by what I said just now about the fact that Amendments cannot be put down until after the Second Reading. It was not possible to read the Bill until lunch-time on Friday, and I had engagements from that moment almost to this. Although they were trifling or trivial, in a sense, partly small constituency engagements— and although bearing in mind the duty always to put Parliamentary business first —it was extremely difficult to cut them. I have no doubt that most of us—and I am sorry but not apologetic for this— come to this debate much less prepared than a man ought to be coming to a debate of this sort.
Those persons least partisan and best informed about this business of delegated legislation—those of such persons who have written about it—have almost all, so far as I can remember, said that the moment of any Parliament's retention of a proper relation between it and an enabling Bill is this moment—the Second Reading moment. If that is so, I do not complain, but I say to the Government and the Treasury Bench that they now owe us ever)' consideration because they, Heaven knows, have landed us in the position of having come to this debate so ill-prepared as I feel myself to be and I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends are.
I am not a lawyer, but with regard to Clause 1—the declaratory Clause—it has always seemed to be dubious often, whether declaration strengthens or weakens. It is particularly dubious where the converse of what one is declaring is not reliable. Authority, responsibility, jurisdiction—all these things depend upon allegiance, and allegiance depends upon protection. The point about the situation in which we now are is that neither we nor any other Power has a normal capacity to protect subjects in Rhodesia.
I have hastily turned over most previous Bills of this sort, but I am relying mainly on my memory, defective—some of them were a long time ago, for instance of

1939—when I say that they have all been limited mainly by their declaration of purpose. A simple example was the Defence of the Realm Act, passed in August, 1914. The purpose then was simply to win the war. Here, the operative subsection—Clause 2(1)—does not tell us what the purpose is. What it tells us is that anything to do with Rhodesia shall come within the ambit of action by the Government, just as other Bills might have told us that this was the case in regard to anything to do with Germany or Korea, or some colony where there had been a disastrous hurricane or fire. But the policy has not been made clear, only the territory and persons aimed at.
If it should be assumed that the policy is to restore law and order, I must remind the House—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has left, because I should like to have had a confirmatory nod from him—of what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said about law and order. In earlier cases this was the main limitation on the scope of such a Bill as this—it was known what the Bill was for. Here we do not know that at all, expressly. In all previous Bills of this nature the general purpose has been expressed, and generally we have had a series of examples—(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)—in which detailed points of the general policy have been set out. Here, we have not got that.
Then, Ministers can give legislative authority to anything connected with Southern Rhodesia which "appears to Her Majesty" to be expedient. My recollection is not good but hon. and learned Gentlemen will remember the cases of Bayer and Liversedge and other such cases. My vague amateur memory of such things is that these words are designed to make it quite plain that from this matter courts are wholly excluded. I do not at all want to argue whether that is right or wrong. On the whole, I think, it is probably right. What I do want to argue is that it should be made quite plain by the Treasury Bench what these words are designed to do.
Incidentally, I may remind the Solicitor-General that he was on the anti-Government side on this on one occasion —in the 18b debate—when he was in favour of the Home Secretary being bound to accept the advice of his advisory committee. I thought at the time


that he was wrong. Now, no doubt, he thinks he was wrong. Now he has jolly well got to.
There are one or two things which worry me about subsection (3). The Attorney-General said—he said it exactly like an uncle in a pious family muttering a prayer because he thinks it due to the presence of his sister and his niece that it should seem habitual—that retrospective legislation is always bad. I have heard many Attorneys say, "Retrospective legislation is always bad:" I have never heard one say so except when he was moving such legislation. It is an absolutely invariable rule that, on all other occasions, private and public, they find it extremely debatable. But when it comes to moving retrospective legislation, they always say that it is, in its nature, bad. So, by Heaven, it is. So are Attorneys, of course: so am I and all miserable sinners. But they ought to remember a little their better selves about this legislation.
Is it really necessary to make, not only in the interval between now and the time when the potential orders are initiated, orders in council retrospective on and on and on, continued retrospection? I cannot believe that it is really necessary. If it is necessary, we ought to be told how and I can produce very good quotations, from the hon. and I think not quite learned Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher) about the law on retrospection. He was on the right side once and I hope that he will agree that this is an occasion when this should be remembered.
Then, the 28 days provision. In earlier Bills of this sort, it has been sometimes none, sometimes seven, sometimes fourteen, sometimes 28—differing periods for differing kinds of order. This 28 days is a very long time. Is it really necessary to provide for 28 days? On the face of it, it is not necessary, and, on the face of the logic of the matter, it cannot be necessary, because it is recommended from the two Front Benches on the ground that on any matters of the least importance, it will be something much shorter. If they know that they can do that now, it must be plain that the 28 days is a dangerously long period in this Bill and I would ask now for further consideration of that.
Then there is the point about prorogation, which I think has been dealt with sufficiently. I think that those are all the separate points which I need to mention. They are none of them mere committee points. They are suitable no doubt in committee but are not committee points which would be unsuitable at this moment. I hope that no one will think that I mention any of them in any intention of opposition or obstruction. On the policy of Her Majesty's Government, though I believe that it could, with a little ingenuity, be brought into order on Second Reading of this Bill—I believe that we might all talk almost until this Rhodesia business is over—but, for the purposes of my argument now, I am not on the policy. I am not at all concerned to make things difficult either for the Government or for my own leaders, in respect to whom I yield to no one.
But I wish to make clear that it is difficult for Parliament to get back from these things once gone wrong. That reminds me of one other thing which I ought to mention—the "grandchildren" of delegated legislation. The Solicitor-General will remember that that expression became a technical term, because, under the delegated legislation of the last war—not under all of it, but certainly under most of it—the House had no right to see, still less to debate or move against, not the Order by the Regulations issued under the Order and these came to be called the grandchildren.
That was put right in 1947 or 1948, I have forgotten which, in one of the two Socialist Supplies and Services Bills which went very far towards strengthening the executive against the legislature—I think disgracefully far. That is not partisan: I think many hon. Members opposite thought so as well at that time. But they did one good thing in that Bill— they made it possible for the House to inspect and have some control over the Regulations issued under Orders.
It may not be vitally important now— it might never become important, although it did become extremely important in the past—and if this goes on for many weeks, it might become extremely important. Ministers ought to be clear what they should do about this and the House ought to be clear about what it wants them to do about this, before it parts with this Bill.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: In the debate on Friday, the Government invited us to discuss the Rhodesian situation and we had a very good talk. Today, we are being asked to take action. This Bill marks the first stage of a journey and none of us knows where this journey will end. It is very important that we should examine this Measure, both its purposes and its consequences, very dispassionately—not in a mood of emotion, but as surgeons and doctors would examine a case.
The Bill confers immense powers on the Government. I hope that when the Solicitor-General winds up, he will be able to answer some of the points which were raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman). I am no lawyer, but I thought that his argument sounded overwhelming. I was impressed by the fact that, in opening the debate, the Attorney-General said that the Government had no intention of suspending the Constitution "at this stage ". In a quotation from the Prime Minister which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) read to the House when he sprang, with characteristic chivalry, to the Government's defence, there is also a qualifying phrase. "Not at present" were the words which the Prime Minister used. We should have an answer on this, because it is of vital importance both to the strategy on which the Government are embarked and to the hopes of bringing an end to the present rebellion.
I want to look at the Bill, first of all, in the context of the negotiations which failed and which led to U.D.I. in Salisbury and to this Bill in the House of Commons. I do not altogether share the admiration which some have for the Prime Minister as a negotiator. I do not think that he did any better in this negotiation than over Kashmir or Vietnam. There is a golden rule in negotiation. There is a time when, by giving an inch, one can save a mile, and, later on, there comes a time when, by giving a mile, one cannot even save an inch. It seems to me that the Prime Minister dribbled out his concessions under pressure and so—and this is what is relevant to the Bill—increased mistrust.
The real reason for the breakdown was the inability to overcome the mistrust which existed on both sides in the negotiations. On the United Kingdom side, there was a mistrust that, if we gave independence on the basis of the 1961 Constitution, the Constitution which this Bill gives power to revoke, the Rhodesians would use it to introduce regressive measures which would injure the position of the Africans in Southern Rhodesia. Looking back on our experience in South Africa, no one can say that there was not some basis for that mistrust. On Mr. Smith's side, there was a mistrust that Britain, had the Rhodesians gone on without seeking independence, might at some time have gone back upon the conventions under which we undertook not to interfere in the internal legislation of Rhodesia or to amend the Constitution on our own initiative. Many speeches must have lent colour to that mistrust. None more than the speech of the Archbishop, which came, I think, at a very unfortunate time.
Yet there were some people in Rhodesia—Europeans—who did trust the British Government, who wanted to go on working with us. But on what basis? Not on a basis of independence bringing speedy majority rule. They wanted to go on on the basis of the 1961 Constitution without independence. It will come as a severe shock to them, to moderate men among the Europeans, that the Government are taking power to revoke, suspend or amend the Constitution, that they are putting themselves in a position from which they could impose a constitutional settlement if they were to prevail in their struggle with the rebel Government.
We must demand from the Government a clear assurance that there is no intention of imposing a constitutional settlement upon the Rhodesian people and that any ultimate settlement must come from agreement with a Rhodesian Government elected on the basis of the 1961 Constitution—unamended.

Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South): Was it not the policy of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), when he was in charge of negotiations, that the 1961 Constitution did not provide a sufficiently wide basis of franchise to justify the granting of independence?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Lady has misunderstood what I said. I said that I wanted an assurance from the Solicitor-General that we would not, under the powers conferred on the Government by the Bill, seek to impose a settlement on the Rhodesian people and that any settlement to be arrived at for independence must be negotiated between the Government of this country and a Rhodesian Government, when one can be formed legally on the basis of the 1961 Constitution not amended unilaterally under this Bill.
The Bill is the centrepiece of a series of measures—I do not call them punitive measures but coercive measures— designed, as the Prime Minister told us, to bring down the Smith regime. It is only reasonable, before we give our assent to it, to ask ourselves whether these measures are likely to succeed. I asked the Prime Minister this in the debate on Friday, and he said that he thought that they would succeed. If the measures so far introduced, including the ones to which reference is made under the Bill—that is, those relating to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the Fugitive Offenders Act—are calculated to succeed, why are the Government taking such very wide powers? Why do they want to be able to bring in their Order at once and leave as long as 28 days thereafter, perhaps the whole of a Recess, before the House has an opportunity to pass judgment? Is this emergency procedure necessary for the Fugitive Offenders Act or for terminating Rhodesia's share in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement?
Suppose that the Prime Minister is wrong and the measures so far announced are not enough and do not work, how far will the Government go? How do they mean to fill in this blank cheque which they are asking the House to give them? At the end of his speech the other day, the Prime Minister read an eloquent quotation from words used by Sir Winston Churchill at the time of the Abyssinian war. What Sir Winston Churchill was saying, in effect, was, "If you embark on sanctions, you must be prepared to go the whole hog" Are the Government prepared to go the whole hog? Is the Bill intended to provide them with the means of escalating sanctions, and how far would they go?
Is their object to create economic chaos in Rhodesia? Is it their wish to create disorder as the means of restoring law? I should be sorry for any of the officers and judges in Rhodesia now asked to maintain order if they were to find themselves doing so against disorder deliberately brought about by the Government's policy. Therefore, I seek the further assurance from the Solicitor-General that he has no intention, and the Government have no intention, to use the powers under the Bill to enable them to undertake an escalation of sanctions against Rhodesia.

Mr. K. Zilliacus: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Prime Minister's statement on Friday that the object of sanctions is to put an end to the rebellion, and is it not a matter for Mr. Smith and his friends to decide how far they are prepared to go in defying law and order and their constitutional duty? Do not we have to escalate sanctions until such point as the rebellion is defeated?

Hon. Members: Ah.

Mr. Amery: The point the hon. Gentleman makes is perfectly tenable from his point of view, but it is not the point I understood the Prime Minister to make. He said that he thought the present measures would do. He brushed aside any idea of oil sanctions the other day. How far does he want to fill in the blank cheque? The Bill confers enormous powers.
I gravely doubt that economic sanctions would achieve the result which the Government have in mind. Oil is an obvious case. We all know that it is difficult to deny oil to Southern Rhodesia without denying it to Zambia as well.
Those who have studied the economy of Southern Rhodesia are all convinced that it would take several months before the present sanctions even begin to bite, let alone to take effect. Those who know the psychology of the Rhodesians will agree with me, I think, that they are not very likely to be impressed by these measures. They are men very like ourselves with, perhaps, something of a Cromwellian readiness to accept some austerity and hardship in a cause which they believe, rightly or wrongly—I think wrongly—to be just.
But, over and above that, there is a fact of power politics which the House must not overlook. No doubt, the South African and Portuguese Governments would be glad to see this matter resolved in a friendly way by reconciliation. They have no interest in a crisis breaking out in Southern Africa. But they could not easily allow Mr. Smith to be brought to his knees; and, unless we are prepared to extend the conflict to the whole of Southern Africa, whether by sanctions or other means, we shall find it impossible to bring the rebellion to its knees.
I know that there are some who would be glad to embark on a crusade to impose majority rule throughout Southern Africa. But this is a notion which does not commend itself to the House as a whole. Why should we undertake the damage which our own country would suffer and run the risks which could escalate beyond our control? Already, the sanctions proposed will add £30 million or £40 million to our dollar payments each year. It is not a big thing, but it is not a small thing either. I can well imagine the kind of comment we should hear from many quarters in the House, if it were proposed to do this as a gesture, in some other context. But why should we do it? Of course, we cannot condone rebellion. But the effort we make to suppress rebellion must correspond to some extent to the injury which we suffer from the rebellion. Certainly this is a rebellion, but it is a rebellion wrapped up in the Union Jack, and I cannot imagine a rebellion less directed against British interests.
Is there really any great principle at stake here? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] There has been a lot of talk about one man, one vote. But the Prime Minister has mads clear that this is not the issue at stake. He was quite prepared to go on under the 1961 Constitution, and under that Constitution there would be no question of one man, one vote for at least 15 years and, some Rhodesians think, for 50.
The truth is that a new doctrine has been evolved recently. It is that Britain should not hand over independence except to a Government elected on a "one-man, one-vote" principle. This is a new doctrine. It did not always exist. It is being applied in Africa. No matter

whether all of us know that the democratically elected Government to which we hand over will soon be replaced by a dictatorship. No matter whether a dictatorship would in truth give way to barbarism. That would not be our responsibility. That is the new doctrine. It is not a principle or, if it is, it is the principle of Pontius Pilate, who said: "Choose between the two, Barabbas or Christ. I wash my hands of the death of this just man ". I am convinced that there is no principle at stake. But I agree that there are great interests involved and that the Government have a right to take powers to try to defend these interests.
What, then, are these interests? It is on the basis of them that the two parties have the most in common. We have no great economic interests in Rhodesia. But we have great interests in South Africa and Zambia. We do not want to see a conflagration in a part of the world from which we draw so much of our raw materials, and where we have vital markets. And the Government must be prepared to guard these interests and to show themselves determined to guard them. But how is this to be done?
This must, of course, be a matter of judgment and the Executive must judge. It may be that the emotions of the United Nations are sham emotions. If they are, then sham measures like these may be justified, but it is unwise for a great country like ours to base its policy on shams.
I would advise the Government, in all humility, not to exaggerate the danger to our interests from international intervention; not to exaggerate the peril of Red troops in blue berets. We have had some experience of this. The United Nations force in the Congo would have been powerless without American transport support—given not by the United Nations but at the request of the Congolese Government. I do not think that the Americans would be likely to do that in this context.
Nor do I think that Soviet Union intervention is at all likely. It fell to me as Secretary of State for Air to advise the Government of the day on how far the Soviet Union could support the Gizenga r6gime established in Stanleyville in the North of the Congo. After considering the best information and intelligence reports, it became clear that, even with the


help of Egyptian bases, the Russians could not sustain a military effort of any size in Stanleyville.
We are today talking about a crisis 1,500 miles further south, where it would not be Tshombe's mercenaries that would face the Soviets but the second best army in the African continent. I do not think we need worry overmuch about Red troops in blue berets.
Of course, these are deep issues for the Commonwealth—and here again the Government are right to arm themselves with powers to try to minimise the stresses which might be imposed upon the Commonwealth. But let us be clear about this. The Commonwealth is not as united on this matter as it might appear. The Australians have already made it clear that they are not so sure about the sanctions. In Africa the pressure for violent action seems to increase the further from Rhodesia one gets. Zambia and Malawi are rather cautious. No wonder. They need to be realistic in view of their nearness to the scene. I urge the Government not to be frightened of too many of the stresses in the Commonwealth, nor of international intervention. Do not let them become "frightened little men ".
I appreciate that Her Majesty's Government have a difficult hand to play. They believe that sanctions will work and I hope that the sanctions which they have announced will be enough, but I doubt it.
I trust that Her Majesty's Government will not embark on or become committed to what one might call a policy of unconditional surrender. It would be easy to fill in this Bill to make it so unacceptable to European Rhodesian opinion that it would be imposing unconditional surrender on them.
I do not think that Her Majesty's Government will get a victory by sanctions, or by force, or by bringing about economic chaos. What, then, should we advise them to do? They are the Executive and must play the hand—[Interruption.]—but the important thing, I submit, will be to gain time to enable passions to cool here, in Salisbury and the rest of the world. Gain time for what?
There will be no return to colonial rule. This is a chapter from the past. One cannot put the clock back. But we must hope and work for the time when

reconciliation will be possible. It may be that, if we are patient, wise and fair, an independent Rhodesian Government may judge it right to make some of the concessions to world opinion which as a Colony they were not prepared to do. Then will be our chance, perhaps, to take an independent Rhodesian Government by the hand and lead them into the comity of nations. Perhaps one day it may even be possible for us to lead that Government into Commonwealth membership. After all, no country per head of population has done so much by way of economic development and military sacrifice to serve the Commonwealth.

5.16 p.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) considers that no questions of principle are involved in the Bill or in this debate. I feel bound to rise to dispute that with him, for I am sure that he does not carry the whole House with him in that view.
Much of the difficulty of the whole Rhodesian situation is that there are great principles involved on both sides. It is the way we see the current course of history that makes the solution of the problem of Rhodesia such a desperately important one for us in the House of Commons to face. It is too grave a matter to approach on purely party lines. It raises principles on which we are agreed across the Floor of the House— for example, the principle of free government—and requires an understanding of human attitudes in Rhodesia to which we need to contribute from both sides of the House. I accept this, and the right hon. Member for Preston, North has his contribution to make, too.
I wish to speak particularly of the conscience of Rhodesia as expressed today by the Churches of Rhodesia and, at second hand, through the Churches in this country. The leaders and official representatives of the Churches of Britain meet in the British Council of Churches —and since I am the only member of that body in the House, I have been asked to put their point of view to the House.
All hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, will wish to


think out, with the Churches, the implications of their beliefs for the action which, as the Government and as Parliament, we are called upon to take. The involvement of the Churches in Rhodesia in this situation is very deep and is widely acknowledged. They are responsible for 90 per cent. of the primary education of Africans there. They are also responsible for the greater part of the secondary and teacher-training education. Their efforts to increase the higher levels of education in Rhodesia, of Africans, have been positively opposed by the Smith regime; for example, by instructing the Churches to reduce by 25 per cent. the intake of Africans into teacher-training colleges next January.
The experience of the present and previous Governments in Britain when they have sought to increase the effort going into teacher training, further education and higher education has been that this has been opposed by the Smith regime. This is the daily experience of the Churches in their attempt to administer the machinery of education in Rhodesia up to the present.
Under such a regime it seems inescapable that the master-servant relationship with Africans will be maintained. It is this that the Churches of Rhodesia cannot accept. Hon. Members will have received a report of the consultation on human relations sponsored by the Christian Council of Rhodesia and held at the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland on 25th August of this year. We have just heard that this report has been suppressed by the censors in Salisbury, and cannot today be published in Rhodesia.
But this involvement of the Churches is not simply in education. It is the fact that the Churches are more closely bound up with the life of the Africans in the villages and towns of Rhodesia that has led them to protest at the grave injustice of the system of government which the illegal unilateral declaration of independence was intended to perpetuate. This involvement has brought to the Churches knowledge of the resentment—indeed, the hatred—nurtured by the system, and it is the African Christians in the villages and towns who know that, if Britain does not fulfil her obligations, Africans will take the law violently into their own hands.

They fear far more the measures that they and their colleagues would take— their friends in Africa—than they fear any action that would be taken by Britain.
I think that the right hon. Member is displaying a lighthearted attitude to the lives of farmers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—and whites in Rhodesia. These, I assure the House, are the reports from African Churches in the villages. These people are not agitators, but they live alongside the people there. It is these reports, collected directly from the people concerned by missionaries in Rhodesia, that have led the Churches to make their urgent representations to the Government.
The objective must certainly be to see that such changes as are made are brought about with the least possible suffering and loss of life. It was this background of information, of experience in Rhodesia today, that led the British Council of Churches at its meeting last month to resolve that in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence, rather than let the situation drift the British Government should be prepared to resume responsibility for government in Rhodesia. That is what we are doing in this Bill. As such, it has the support of the Churches: of their leaders meeting in the British Council of Churches.
The Prime Minister made the Government's position quite clear on Friday when, describing the objectives, he said:
The question … is whether it is our policy to restore Rhodesia to the rule of law at the earliest possible moment, or whether we want to drag out the agony. This can be done, in our view, only by bringing the Rhodesia regime to an end, by making that regime unworkable and, indeed, creating a situation where at the earliest possible moment the people of Rhodesia, acting through the only legal Government there—the Governor —-themselves want to see and ask to see a lawful Government in its place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 633.]
But while these are the objectives of the Government, in their specific action the Government are conditioned, first, by the reactions of people in Rhodesia, secondly, by public opinion in this country and, thirdly, by world opinion, including opinion expressed in the United Nations. Since the Government have made their position clear, it is to the country and


the Opposition—and the Leaders of the Opposition in particular—that the case for necessary action must be made.
There is no case for merely nominal sanctions leading after a short time to kiss-and-make-up with the Smith regime. This would show that Britain was abrogating her responsibilities, and would unleash violent reactions inside and outside Rhodesia which would quickly get out of control. To say that any other than formal sanctions would be punitive, merely to bring Rhodesia to its knees, is beside the point. When a driver is driving recklessly, dangerously, through a crowded shopping street heading, with his passengers, straight for disaster, we do not stop to talk about punishment and bringing the driver to his knees; we take the most effective possible means to stop the runaway car without risk, or with the minimum risk, to the people involved—

Mr. John Page: Hear, hear.

Dr. Bray: Yes—all right.
Therefore, we have to see whether the policy we have so far undertaken is the right one. If we go no further than the sanctions so far announced, those sanctions may produce—and it is devoutly to be hoped that they will produce—a speedy reaction, and an alternative regime in Rhodesia with which it is possible to negotiate.

Mr. John Page: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the passengers and trying to stop the runaway bus—which I do not think is a very good analogy, anyhow—and causing the minimum danger to the passengers and public. Surely, one does that as carefully as possible but, as far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman is saying that and starts by being careful but ultimately takes any means that one can to stop it, even with the maximum danger to the passengers and public.

Dr. Bray: I think that if the hon. Member will follow this argument, he will understand.
It is generally acknowledged that the economic sanctions will take time to work. This has been pointed out by hon. Members opposite. It will take a matter of months to show a serious effect. With

the difficulties of credit for tobacco planters, the Treasury seem to think that it will take three or four months for inflation to get under way, unemployment having begun to increase meanwhile. But not only will the next tobacco crop not be available for sale before next Easter, but the British tobacco manufacturers seem to carry more than two years' stock of Rhodesian tobacco. The next year's crop could, presumably, be kept in warehouses in Rhodesia for a year or more on credit given to farmers by the Rhodesian Government, in the hope of later sale without interrupting the normal flow of business to Britain when affairs have settled down.
The Treasury, thank goodness, has no experience of Government under an authoritarian regime, and it would be a mistake to suppose that, with sufficiently repressive internal measures—price control, rationing, the lot—the Smith regime could not carry on, somehow, for many months, and possibly for years. In the deteriorating economic situation that Rhodesia would then face, with increasing unemployment, possibly with isolated acts of violence and retaliatory action between black and white, the danger is that within two years race relations there would have degenerated to the point where there was no future for white men in Rhodesia at all.

Mr. Paget: Hear, hear.

Dr. Bray: It is understandable that some hon. Members on both sides of the House shrink from this possibility, but the alternative is not weaker sanctions, but stronger sanctions, which can take effect more quickly. Indeed, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark), with whom I very seldom agree, said in Friday's debate that in many ways he would support strong sanctions in the hope that they would be taken off in a reasonably short period of time, rather than half-measures which might continue to eat out the economy of Rhodesia for a long time. What we, therefore, have to consider about sanctions is not their brutality or whether or not they are punitive, but their effectiveness in relation to the damage they do.
That means that we are driven directly to consider an oil embargo. Assuming


that that is practicable, and with international reaction so far it would seem to be, I do not think that the Prime Minister needs persuading of its merits as a sanction—if one can talk of merits in this matter. But the Government cannot use this sanction, cannot lay on an oil embargo, until there has been time for reactions to show both in the world and in this country—until, indeed, there is some test possible of the measure of support that would be forthcoming. This has already begun to happen. We read in The Times today how Lord Malvern, with all his long experience of Rhodesia, pointed out that half-hearted sanctions would not have any effect on Rhodesia:
They seem to be just playing at it, he said, but we shall know more after the debate in the House of Commons tomorrow. An oil sanction was the only one which would have a sudden effect on Rhodesia, ' but if they cannot find a way to fly in oil to Zambia they will kill that country too.'
It appeared that the best hope was for sanctions to work quickly to give the Government a rude awakening, otherwise Rhodesia would ' go down and down and down '".

Mr. John Farr: Will the hon. Member say how he thinks oil sanctions will be effective in view of the fact that both South Africa and Mozambique have good road and rail connections between their country and Rhodesia and could bring in all the oil needed?

Dr. Bray: If we were to have a debate on the practicability of oil sanctions I would take that up with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). That is for another time. But on the question of practicability, the oil requirements for South Africa are very well known. They are met largely from abroad. If those requirements were in any way increased for any reason they could be controlled by the suppliers. It is perfectly possible both in South Africa and Mozambique, provided there is world opinion behind an oil sanction, to make it effective. This is what needs time, to make it effective.

Mr. Paget: Has my hon. Friend considered the further point that neither Portugal nor South Africa could possibly allow oil sanctions to succeed because if the success of oil sanctions were given a precedent that precedent would immediately apply against them. Their survival depends on oil sanctions not being successful.

Dr. Bray: If my hon. and learned Friend assumes that we want to go about the world applying oil sanctions or any sanctions on anyone with whom we disagree on any minor, or indeed major, point, that may be so, but this is not so and it is to mistake the nature of our problems about Rhodesia today.
In the light of this need to minimise the suffering, the loss of life perhaps, in Rhodesia, I urge the leaders of the Opposition, in particular the Leader of the Opposition itself, to look very seriously at the attitude of his party to oil sanctions. Hard things have been said about the Leader of the Opposition, about his temporising on tobacco sanctions and giving way to sectional interests within his party—[HON. MEMBERS: "What sections?"]—but I feel that these things have not been justified. I admire the Leader of the Opposition in many ways but undoubtedly his attitude would be more understandable to the country as a whole if he were to show that his concern was genuinely to minimise the suffering in Rhodesia and to take the most effective means to that end. If he were prepared to support effective, decisive, immediate sanctions I am quite sure he would have the support of his party in the country and I am quite sure he would make it possible to exercise leadership in his party in future which it does not appear clear that he will be able to do as things now stand.
Most important of all is what we hold out to the people of Rhodesia in the long run. We have believed and still believe firmly in the possibility of a genuine multi-racial society in Rhodesia. We do not want to see the situation degenerating to a point where there is no future for white men there. We have spoken of a definite movement towards majority rule, not majority rule overnight. We are as anxious to assure the rights of the white Rhodesians as of coloured ones. We should go further and say that we are prepared to pay compensation for the property of those Rhodesians who after whatever settlement is reached decide that there is no future for them in Rhodesia and want to move to another part of the Commonwealth.
The principles of such a scheme were brought out in Kenya. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has doubts


about the efficacy with which that scheme worked, but we can make sure that it works in Rhodesia. The cost would be heavy but it need not be more heavy even than the continuation of the sanctions which we have undertaken.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Would the hon. Member agree that the example of Kenya is not a very good one, nor encouraging to Rhodesia?

Dr. Bray: There is some dispute about the details which the hon. Member gave to the House on Friday. I think he would be well advised to wait until he gets the details.

Mr. Wall: £0·2 million more.

Dr. Bray: Some hon. Members opposite have spoken of the danger of vindictiveness towards Rhodesia. I think that here they have misjudged the temper of the Government and the psychological reaction to the release of tension, the cessation of conflict. If the illegal declaration of independence began with a sad parody of the United States Declaration of Independence, let it end with an echo of the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln, speaking 74 years after the Declaration of Independence, said:
We here highly resolve that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): The main point made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) about oil sanctions was effectively disposed of by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
With respect to him, for a highly intelligent man, I think he suffers from wider delusions about Central Africa than anyone to whom we have listened on Friday and today. He spent some time condemning Rhodesia for the provisions made before U.D.I. for African education. This is one of the most unfair charges which have been brought. He should know that before U.D.I. Mr. Smith's Government, through its Department of Education, produced a ten-year scheme exclusively for African education costing £36 million, including 30 new

secondary schools and bringing the total number of elementary schools to a figure over 200, I think. I have not the figure with me now, but I should be glad to give it to the hon. Member after the debate.

Dr. Bray: Can the hon. Member say why, if the Rhodesian Government are so keen to see an increase in education for Africans, they reduced the intake of Africans to training colleges?

Mr. Hastings: I think the best way in which the hon. Member could judge these questions properly would be to go there and to see for himself what is happening and he might begin with the multi-racial university. Unfortunately that would be a little difficult at the moment, but I hope he will take the first opportunity of doing so.
Before turning to the main objectives and the possible results of this Bill, I wish to raise a point of detail which I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree is substantial, extremely important and urgent. If my information is correct—it has only just been brought to my attention—the public servants of the Rhodesian High Commission who are still here are being required by the Commonwealth Relations Office to sign a declaration which I propose to read to the House. It says:
You are required to declare that you dissociate yourself from the purported declaration of independence that has been made by Mr. Smith and his colleagues, that you do not accept the authority of any Government that Mr. Smith and his colleagues may purport to constitute in pursuance of this illegal declaration of independence and that you do accept the continuing responsibility and authority for Southern Rhodesia of the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom.
If you decline to make a declaration in the above terms, you will be regarded as having chosen to adhere to Mr. Smith's illegal regime.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hastings: Hon. Members opposite seem to be quite happy about this. If they reread the speech the Prime Minister made on Friday, they will find that his speech was not at all in accord with the spirit of this brutal document. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They will see that both the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition recognised that the choice facing all public servants in Rhodesia was extremely


delicate and difficult. None of them, so far as I know, apart from the public servants of the Rhodesian High Commission in London, is being required to make that choice publicly.
What will happen to them? If they say, "No. We refuse to dissociate ourselves ", they are apparently branded as rebels. If they say, "Yes ", either they cannot return home—it would indeed be difficult—or, if they return home, they return having declared their open opposition to their own employer. It seems to me in all fairness that this is more than can reasonably be expected of public servants placed in this extremely delicate position. I am not quite sure whether there is any part of the Bill under which they are being required to sign this declaration. I truly believe that it is unfair and that it goes beyond the spirit of the speech the Prime Minister made on Friday. I hope that when the learned Law Officer of the Crown winds up the debate he will make very plain whether the Government propose to adhere to that, or whether they will not think again. Perhaps this is some oversight on the part of the Commonwealth Relations Office. These people should be enabled to go home without having to make this agonising, and I think totally unfair, public choice.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Would my hon. Friend add to his question to the Law Officer the point whether there is any time limit in signing and what the penalty is?

Mr. Hastings: I should be only too glad to add that question. I have no doubt that the learned Attorney-General will make a note of it, as perhaps he has made a note of the general point I have raised. This is not a party point. This is not a point on any of the principles which have been involved in this debate. It is a personal point for a few individuals who by pure chance happen to be in London, as opposed to being in Salisbury, at this hour. They are public servants in the employ of the Rhodesian Government.

Mr. Paget: rose—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Mr. Silverman.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman explain to the House—

Mr. Hastings: I gave way to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mr, Paget: Mr, Paget rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Silverman.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what difficulty an honest man would be in?

Sir K. Pickthorn: On a point of order. I am very likely wrong—I frequently am —but it had never occurred to me before that it was the business of the Chair to call interrupters. If one or more persons desire to interrupt, it surely is the decision of the hon. Member who has the Floor by whom, if anyone, he will be interrupted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) gave way to two hon. Members. It seemed to me that I had to choose which should interrupt.

Mr. Hastings: Further to that point of order. I should make it clear, as I endeavoured to do, that I gave way to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, not to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was certainly not clear to the Chair. I think that we had better proceed.

Mr. Hastings: If we can leave that point, which seems to be one of substance.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Mr. Sydney Silverman rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) must not persist.

Mr. Hastings: To come to the Bill— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Mr. Hastings.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Be true to yourself.

Mr. Hastings: I have been connected with Rhodesia since my childhood, and through my family, for much longer than that. It is, for me, a bitter thing to see all the bright hopes with which I have been brought up brought to this present pass. Of course I, like all other hon. Members on both sides, deplore the U.D.I., but it is our duty, I conceive, if we cannot condone at least to try, and to try sincerely, to understand the reasons which have brought it about.
Therefore, I want to devote the first part of my remarks to the two main factors which have worked in the minds of Rhodesians and which have brought about the tragedy. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister did everything he could to avert the disaster, but unfortunately it is not a story of the negotiations of the last few weeks or days. It is a story of years of negotiations. The Prime? Minister was not negotiating, as some have tried to make out, with small and frightened men or with racist madmen, but with men perhaps made desperate by these years of negotiation with successive British Governments.
In Friday's debate more than one hon. Member pointed out that each Rhodesian Government appeared to have given way to another less moderate than the one before. I ask the House—why was this? Could it not be that, if some acceptable agreement had been made on independence with one of those more moderate Governments, we should never be in the pass we are today? They saw the Federation die gradually of negotiation. They had despaired of persuading British Governments of the true nature of their difficulties over this long period. Even the proposal for the Royal Commission at the last moment carried with it all the risks of a return to confusion and intimidation among the African people.
The Prime Minister—it seems so reasonable to people in this country—insisted that "normal political activity" should be permitted in the campaign leading up to a referendum, but that alone could lead to chaos and hatred in Central Africa at this time. These things sound incredible to many people in this country, but to anybody who knows Rhodesia they are not. They are true. This has been explained very many times in the House, in the Press and elsewhere, but it has

seemed to the people of Rhodesia without any doubt at all that there was no hope of persuading people in this country of the facts or of the nature of their difficulties.
It is not a story, I repeat, of a few frantic days of negotiation. It is a story of years. It must be said that no party represented in this House is blameless in regard to this, least of all some hon. Members, principally on the other side of the House, who have lost no opportunity, certainly since I have been in the House, of sniping and sneering at the Rhodesian achievement whenever they had the chance.
The second factor which was borne upon the Rhodesians and which has brought that country to this tragedy has been the advancing disorder and chaos in independent Africa. In many areas—in vast areas—the values of civilisation have slowly ebbed away and with them all hope of practical aid for the peasant African people there. Practically everywhere the story has been the same—it is unpleasant but it has to be said—one-party government, ruthless suppression of minorities, extravagant and ostentatious living by the African ruling elite, complete indifference to the suffering of the majority, instability, and frequent bloodshed. On Friday the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) cited the case of Kenya. If this is an exception, indeed it makes me happy that it should be so, although the hon. Gentleman cannot be unaware of the views and suffering of the European farmers.
I should like to make two short quotations here which seem to me to bear upon the debates and our consideration of the Bill. They are both from people whose records as liberals and, indeed, as upholders of independence are beyond gainsaying. The first quotation I make is from a letter published in The Times of 6th November of this year from Dame Margery Perham, who has brought more to a knowledge of African affairs than most. She wrote this:
May I make a plea through your columns to the leaders of independent Africa to show some restraint during the next few weeks when … the British and the Rhodesians wrestle with one part of the world's most difficult problem.….
… the state that most calls for African statesmanship at this moment is the Sudan.


Here the army of the Muslim Arab north appear to have been let loose upon the dissident tribes, pagan and partly Christian, of the south. Refugees have been pouring over the frontiers and terrible stories have been told of massacre, torture, the burning of churches and schools, and the killing of those who wore clothes or spoke English in order to deprive these isolated tribes of leadership.
The Guardian of 14th October reports Dr. John Taylor, head of the Church Missionary Society, as saying of the Sudan:
… even allowing for exaggerations and rumours, it was quite plain that terrible atrocities had been committed.' While the attention of the world is focused on the struggle to achieve justice in Southern Africa, the equally great struggle in the Sudan seems to arouse very little public concern'.
I did not notice any statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury about that. I did not: read anything from the Liberal Party. The Congo, Ruanda and Zanzibar all tell the same story, and now the Sudan.
It is a solemn fact that more Africans have been slaughtered by Africans since independence, in these few years, than died in all the colonial wars in Africa since the British first landed at Table Bay. As Mao Tse-Tung has said, this is a revolutionary situation, and what we are witnessing today is a second grab for Africa, more subtle than the first, but a reality nevertheless. The Prime Minister graphically described this on Friday. This is the reality of the situation. It is one thing to watch it from the security of London, S.W.I, it is another to watch it from the Zambesi valley.
I come to the question of the objectives of this Bill. The Prime Minister has said, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) has made plain, that the objective was to reduce the illegal Government. With respect, I believe this to be unrealistic and dangerous. On Friday we listened to a speech from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) which I believe was one of the bravest, the most realistic and the most important I have ever listened to in the House. He pointed the dilemma. He sketched the history and he implied the end.
If the objective of reducing the Smith Government is unobtainable except at grave risk of chaos preceded by a period of harsh excess, then the objective is unacceptable. This is what the hon.

and learned Gentleman implied and I agree with him, and if this is so I have to make plain to the House that it is an objective which I do not share and cannot accept. The logic of the situation is that Mr. Smith and his colleagues appear to exercise real power. It has been our mistake over the years in connection with Rhodesia that we have attempted again and again to exercise authority without power. To imagine that we can reduce the Smith Government with economic sanctions is no more than an extension of that mistake.
Economic sanctions, as many hon. Members have said, simply do not work. They create the maximum bitterness and ill-will and all they achieve is the distortion of trade. Hon. Members must be aware that if one wishes to get rid of commodities on the markets of the world one can always do so—at a price. It makes things uncomfortable certainly for Rhodesia, and for the Africans themselves rather than the Europeans, but it can be done, and one does not need to be a clever operator on world markets to achieve it; and in spite of their speeches in the United Nations there are undoubtedly countries waiting to fill our shoes in Rhodesia. We must face the fact.
Much more dangerous is that by playing on the loyalties of Rhodesians or the personal courage of the Governor, the Prime Minister might produce a situation in which there could be division between Europeans in Rhodesia. Hideous consequences might follow. The Rhodesians are not frightened of tightening their belts, but their loyalties are deep. The Prime Minister said on Friday that mere "governessy admonitions" would not be adequate to meet the case. I think that he under-estimates the effect of consequential penalties, as I call them—the withdrawal of Imperial Preference, and the Sugar Agreement, the lack of access to the London Market and, above all, the agony of mind to which this situation has subjected many Rhodesians.
I know that it is argued that anything short of punitive sanctions would be totally unacceptable to the United Nations. I agree, but if, as the Prime Minister has wisely insisted, this is a matter solely for British responsibility, it is also a matter for British judgment, and if in our minds and hearts we should


become convinced that a certain course was necessary and that course was right, then international disapproval should surely take its proper place in our calculations. Of course there would be uproar in many assemblies and in the United Nations, but, with respect, there has often been uproar at the United Nations. Our shoulders are broad and there is a difference between proper deference to international opinion and subjection to international pressure.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Government are afraid to take action which is internationally disapproved? Although I disagreed with that action, I would point out that the Government took action in Aden which was internationally disapproved. Cannot the Government this time take action which is internationally approved?

Mr. Hastings: I am not suggesting anything of the kind. The hon. Member is quite wrong. I am only hoping that if the Government come round to my view I hope that they will not be prevented from taking action by international disapproval.
I am taking exception to the objective behind the Bill. My objection would fit fairly closely the logic of the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton on Friday. We should do nothing which might contribute unnecessarily to the breakdown of cohesive government in Rhodesia, even illegal cohesive government. We should seek to establish a period of calm, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North has said, and an atmosphere in which conciliation may begin again, perhaps through Mr. Smith or his colleagues or perhaps through some other personality commanding wide respect in Rhodesia and here. The Prime Minister will certainly have means of keeping in contact. There is no doubt at all about that.
The imposition of the consequential penalties which must follow the declaration of independence is, of course, inevitable but this is consistent, nevertheless, with the objective which I have outlined. On the other hand, I believe that the imposition of punitive measures,

which I suggest could well be brought about under the Bill, is consistent only with an objective which I believe to be unobtainable except at a totally unacceptable risk. I have tried to speak without passion on a matter which concerns me deeply and personally, but I must make it plain to the House that for the reasons which I have outlined I see a distinct difference between the objective which I accept and this Bill, and therefore I cannot vote for it.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has just delivered one of the most honest speeches that I have heard in the House. I shall disagree with him and I wish to tell him why. The hon. Gentleman's speech and that of the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) made me think of the days of the American Civil War. I do not want to quote Lincoln, but when that war broke out there was considerable movement within the ranks of government and opposition in America to do nothing about the rebellion in the Southern States. The phrase most often used to sum up the situation was, "Let the erring sisters depart ". If one were looking for a slogan to publicise the opposition to this Bill, I should have thought that those words would sum up the points thrown against it.
The right hon. Member for Preston, North said that there was no issue of principle involved here. He said that there may be a matter of interest but there is no issue of principle. I entirely disagree with him. There is a principle involved. It is a principle upon which we on this side of the House feel just as strongly as does the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. The principle is that it would be a bitter, bitter, irony if the last act of de-colonisation which Britain was undertaking in the twentieth century, in ridding itself of all its colonial possessions, was an act of acquiescence in handing over the Government of 3½million Africans to about 210,000 whites. This is an action in which we could not acquiesce.
The hon. Member said that we must try to understand why the Rhodesians feel this way. We may understand it, but, as he told us to make up our own


minds in reference to the United Nations, so we must make up our own minds whether the Rhodesians are right. In my view, the 210,000 white Rhodesians are wrong because they are flying in the face of history and trying to halt a change which is inevitable. What we should try to do in this country is to make that change as easy as possible, to help to make the transition with as little upheaval as possible and to try to ease that transition from the present position of a semi-colonialist regime to a regime in which the principle of one man one vote becomes possible.

Mr. Paget: The trouble is that we did acquiesce in the principle of minority government. That is what the Prime Minister was explaining throughout these negotiations. He said all along that we are not objecting to that principle. The point we have reached is the formalisation of that to which we have already consented—and that does not seem to me to be a matter of principle.

Mr. Richard: I certainly do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I would emphasise to hon. Members who oppose the Government's policy that whether they are supporting the illegal regime in Rhodesia or supporting the regime of South Africa or attacking new regimes up and down the rest of Africa, they are flying in the face of a change which is inevitable. By attacking it and making things more difficult, they are not helping that transition but are making it harder.

Mr. Hastings: It is rather more than that. I was talking of the imposition of this chaos—that is the word which I used. There is a new grab for Africa taking place. That is something which not only the Rhodesians but we in this House have to take into account.

Mr. Richard: Of course there is a new grab going on for Africa—by the Africans. For the first time in the history of colonial Africa, the Africans are beginning to stand on their own feet. We cannot educate an African merely to the level of a mechanical skill. He will go on to want a vote and a say in how his country is run, and he should have that say. Our attack, if it is an attack, upon the present regime in Rhodesia is that this is precisely what they are not doing. We have been accused of distrusting the

Rhodesian regime. Of course we distrust it, once we have looked at what these people have said and what they have done. I will be frank: the objective of the present Rhodesian regime, in my view, irrespective of U.D.I., is to entrench white minority rule in this part of Africa. I am being asked as a supporter of the Government to acquiesce in the rebellion of a Rhodesian regime the object of which, as I see it, is to entrench white minority rule over 3£ million of Her Majesty's subjects. With great respect, we cannot be asked to do that. It cannot be expected of us, and the Government are not prepared to do it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I must challenge the hon. Member on that assertion. If he looks at page 75 of the documents he will find a statement by the Commonwealth Secretary at the meeting in 10, Downing Street on 7th October this year. The Commonwealth Secretary pointed out that the United Kingdom Government were prepared to contemplate a grant of independence before majority rule was actually achieved and that this was a major concession.

Mr. Richard: This does not answer my argument. If anything, it underlines it, and underlines the reasonableness of Her Majesty's Government's attitude in these negotiations. The right hon. Member for Preston, North said that a new principle had been introduced these days —that the British Government were not prepared to grant independence except on the basis of immediate majority rule. This is not so. The quotation which has just been read indicates that it is not so.
The Government's attitude throughout the negotiations was quite clear and distinct and, I should have thought, quite right. They were saying to the Rhodesian Government, "You say that the 1961 Constitution is acceptable to the majority of Africans. Prove it." Once hon. Members look at the Blue Book and go through the negotiations, even up to the last telephone conversation in the early hours of the morning between the Prime Minister and Mr. Smith, they will find no statement by the Government that as a prerequisite to the grant of independence, majority rule had to be conceded. What had to be conceded was a settlement on the basis of the five points—which were initially accepted by the then Rhodesian


Government—and also that it should be proven to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government and this House that those proposals were acceptable to the majority of the African people.
There are three points in the whole dispute. First, why did they demand, and take, their independence? Secondly, was it, in fact, negotiable? Could it have been prevented? Thirdly, what should be our attitude in the future? Those are the three questions which must be answered. The first question—why did they demand independence?—has been answered by the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. He said that there is a fear of what might happen and a fear of what has been happening north of Rhodesia. There was a fear on the part of the white minority of what would happen when majority rule came. This fear led them to take their independence.
But it is precisely that fear which was not negotiable by the Government. How can one negotiate if there is a fear which in itself is unreasonable? How can one negotiate on a reasonable basis with people who, from the start, are taking up an unreasonable position? The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire shakes his head. Speaking for myself, I should have thought that a postulate which says that white minority rule must be entrenched into a future Rhodesian constitution was an unreasonable position. It seems to me that it is extremely difficult to negotiate reasonably with men who are themselves starting from an unreasonable position. That, surely, is the history of the negotiations.

Mr. Hastings: It is a legitimate question which I accept from the hon. Member. Seen from the other side of the argument, it might be put this way: as long as nebulous ties existed between them and a Government in London, which, rightly or wrongly, seemed not to comprehend the threat which faced them, they were in a position in which they felt safe when they were masters of their own destiny and not when they were not masters of it. There are no precedents for this situation. I grant that it is difficult to negotiate.

Mr. Richard: Of course there are no precedents. The fears which the hon.

Member put merely prove how unreasonable their position was. What they are saying—or what he is saying for them, because at the moment he is acting as their unofficial spokesman—is that we should understand their position because they feared that the nebulous ties which tied them to us would make their position in relation to the Africans that much more difficult. But they have had internal autonomy since 1923. If the white minority so fear the black majority, they have had 35 years in which to do something about it. If the result of 35 years of internal autonomy is merely to create a situation in which the two races cannot live side by side in this area, then it says very little for the Administration over that period.
If one goes on from this point and asks, "Was it avoidable?", the answer must be, "No ". The British Government were saying, "We are not prepared to hand over except on the basis of a progression to majority rule". The Rhodesians were saying, "We are not prepared to accept independence unless it is on the basis of entrenched minority rule ". The positions were irreconcilable, and the break eventually became inevitable.
What do we do now? Speeches from the right hon. Member for Preston, North and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire say that we should do nothing. They say that we should pass a pious set of resolutions saying, "Tut, tut. You have been naughty boys. Go away and do not do it again." But as for trying to bring any influence to bear on the rebel Government, the answer of hon. Members opposite is, "Do nothing at all." As far as I can see, the hon. Members concerned think that the sanctions which have been imposed are too swingeing or, if they are not too swingeing, will be ineffective. When somebody says, "Why not make them effective?", they put up their hands in horror at the possibility of our trying to do that.
This is an absurd position to adopt. If the right hon. Member for Preston, North and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire believe that the Rhodesian Government are wrong to take independence, and if they believe that we ought to do something about it, it is no answer for them to turn to the Government and


to say, "You are doing too much now in relation to sanctions, and we shall not support you if you try to do any more".
For the hon. Member to complain about how difficult it had been made for Rhodesian nationals in England when they had been asked to sign a form seems to me incredible. Does he suggest that a rebellion should take place without individuals having to make a choice whether they intend to be rebels or not? I should have thought that, rather than attack the Government for presenting them with a choice, he should have applauded the Government for at least giving potential rebels a chance to draw back from the brink of rebellion before they went back to Rhodesia. But not a bit of it. This indicates very clearly the divergence which exists between some Conservative back-bench Members and the Government's view.
A lot of nonsense is being talked about the difference between punitive and non-punitive sanctions. It is a distinction which I do not comprehend, a distinction without difference. If the Government are in the position that they have to do something, then for heaven's sake let them do it quickly and effectively. The important thing about sanctions is that they should work, they should work quickly, and they should produce the desired result. In this case that result is not merely to express British disapproval of the actions of a rebel regime; it is that we should try to overturn that regime and to re-establish a democratic system of government in Rhodesia.
May I pay a personal tribute to those people in Rhodesia who at least are having the courage openly to come out againgst this illegal act of rebellion? As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, it is easy for us in London to talk about this. It is not so easy if one is sitting in the Governor's mansion in Salisbury, and probably even more difficult if one is standing in the pulpit in Salisbury Cathedral surrounded by an Anglican congregation a large proportion of whom are probably in favour of the illegal act. We should therefore pay tribute to the actions of the Governor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Bishop of Mashonaland, Lord Malvern, the judiciary, and those editors and professional

people in Rhodesia who seem to be coming out against this illegal action.
My view on the position is simple and fairly basic. If we are to adopt sanctions, let them be effective. If oil sanctions can be made to work, and if they are the most effective, then let us have oil sanctions and be done with it. There are two further points I would like to make.
First, it seems that the illegal regime have presented the judges and civil servants with an ultimatum, that if they are not prepared to swear allegience to the rebel regime, they will be dismissed without compensation. Surely it would be right for Her Majesty's Government, in these circumstances, to make it clear that any person who supported the Government's constitutional stand in this matter and came out openly against the rebellious regime would not be at a financial loss for having shown his loyalty to the Crown.

Mr. Iremonger: Mr. Iremonger rose—

Mr. Richard: No. I cannot give way again. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
Secondly, there is the question of censorship. It is vital that the true position somehow or other be put before the people of Rhodesia, but this cannot be done merely by the Rhodesia Herald appearing with blank spaces or putting its censors in the window so that the populace can see them hacking out the offending passages. It can only be done by the B.B.C. making rather more effective and stronger broadcasts to this area. Someone has suggested anchoring radio ships off the coast of Africa. Perhaps it could be done through Zambia or Malawi. I know not, but I trust that the Government are looking closely at the problem of getting the news to the people of Rhodesia.
The principles at stake here are enormous. It is not good enough for hon. Members opposite to say that there are no principles here. The greatest principle of all is at stake. The honour of the British Government is committed in this dispute. If Parliament and the country should fail on this issue, one thing will certainly be said—that whatever our power was in the past to influence the course of human events, it will be gone in the future.

6.17 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: If it were not for the fact that I do not wish unreasonably to hold up Government business today, I would devote more time to the interesting but, in some respects, unfair speech of the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). He said that a lot of nonsense has been talked about drawing a distinction between punitive and consequential sanctions, but I remind him that this distinction was made by the Prime Minister himself last week. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that the Prime Minister was guilty of talking nonsense?
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) made a very important point in saying that if we were to find a solution to the problem we must try to understand what motives drove 250,000 British people, or their representatives, to behave illegally in the way they have done. It is not in this context relevant to consider whether they are right or wrong. We all agree that they are wrong. But it is highly important to understand why they have done it. If we cannot, it will be almost impossible to find a solution.
The hon. Member for Barons Court made a cheap debating point about my hon. Friend's reference to the new grab for Africa. The hon. Member said that it was the Africans who were trying to grab it. He knew very well that my hon. Friend was referring to Communist intervention in Africa. If the hon. Gentleman will not accept my authority, he should read what Dr. Banda said recently—that the threat to Africa and the African Nationalists came from China. It was to that that my hon. Friend was referring, as the hon. Member knew.

Mr. Richard: Would the hon. Gentleman like to trace the connection between a possible Communist grab in Africa and the illegal action taken last week, having regard to the fact that, as far as I know, the potential Communists in Rhodesia, as the Rhodesian Government call them, have been in prison for 18 months?

Sir F. Bennett: It was the hon. Member himself who was trying to connect it with Rhodesia. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was referring to other parts of Africa and the way

in which the Rhodesians have taken the lesson to heart. In Zanzibar, for example, there was no white minority.
The hon. Member also alleged that we are in favour of doing nothing. That is unfair. We should not be giving support to the Bill if we were in favour of doing nothing. Every right hon. and hon. Member on these benches agreed with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he made it clear that we accept the necessity and inevitability of severe consequential sanctions.

Mr. Richard: indicated dissent.

Sir F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman said there was an apparent desire in the Opposition to do nothing in this matter. It is, however, on record that the overwhelming majority of the Conservative Party accepts the inevitability of consequential penalties flowing from illegal action. We know that these are quite severe, and it is because we are supporting it that the Bill is going through tonight.
The question of Roman-Dutch law was raised earlier. Perhaps I can offer the Solicitor-General a little advice, being the only Roman-Dutch lawyer in the House. As far as I know, Roman-Dutch law no longer has any effect on criminal matters. I have thus saved him some research. I am still an advocate in the High Court of Southern Rhodesia, but I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, in case he wants to send me one of these contentious little forms which have been referred to, that he need not bother. My loyalty is still firmly with the Crown in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for once to receive some accordance from the benches opposite.
On Friday a whole series of charges were made that the Conservatives for one reason or another, led by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, were ratting on national unity and running away from it. This is wholly unfair, and I am glad that such charges have not been seriously repeated today. We are certainly all united on certain things.
First, everybody, despite what may have been said, thoroughly deplores the illegal action taken by Mr. Smith. Secondly, there is virtually unanimous if not complete support for the consequential penalties flowing from it. Thirdly,


we all agree, I think, that the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Relations Secretary did their best to avert the break at the last moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think they did their best. It may well not have been enough. There may well be points of criticism. I intend to make one serious point of criticism which could not be made on Friday because the documents were not then available.
It is a valid criticism that the Prime Minister did not make the concessions he made at the last moment over the telephone right at the beginning when the Royal Commission was set up. The result of holding back these concessions to the eleventh hour was that, by then, the wild men behind Mr. Smith were in charge and it was impossible to stop them. History will never know what might have happened if the concessions had been made at the beginning and not at the end.
Another thing on which we all agree is the desirability of restoring constitutional government in Southern Rhodesia. Here is where I am concerned about the absolute pledge to national unity from now. We are asked to give a blank cheque, and some doubts must be cast upon it. At this point, if we are to be asked to take further sanctions, we have the right and the duty to consider what objective we are trying to achieve and the likelihood of the steps proposed attaining it. For us to have doubts on that is not to be running away from national unity. It is right that we should have them. It has nothing to do with factions or sectional interests.
Every hon. Member has a duty to discuss any more serious steps that are taken beyond those already outlined and to decide for himself whether this will further the agreed objective of restoring national unity and legal government within Southern Rhodesia. Indeed, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he would expect every hon. Member to think of the situation in this light.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: For my part, I accept the duty of any hon. Member on either side to consider whether what the Government are proposing is wrong, either because it is inefficient or because it goes too far. But is it not an obligation on hon. Members who think that

they are wrong to suggest to the Government what else they should be doing?

Sir F. Bennett: It is going much beyond the duty of any back bencher, who cannot have access to all the information at the disposal of the Government, to make detailed suggestions. That has never been suggested in any dispute on any subject. I do not want to go beyond what I have said. I have positive suggestions to make, but I cannot give them at this point. I urge merely that we should examine what we are doing and whether it will achieve our objective. We have not even got the Orders yet to be able to judge on them, so, in effect, we are being asked to give a blank cheque, with post-dated on it as far as some of us are concerned.
I want now to consider sanctions which may come at a later date and what should be our judgment. It seems to me that if they are not harsh enough a great deal of bitterness and misery will nevertheless be caused in trying to bring Rhodesia to its knees and that this will make ultimate agreement even more difficult to achieve than it is today, because ineffective sanctions will be useless. We would thus create great bitterness and resentment without achieving the objective.
At that point, the temptation would be great for hon. Members opposite and the Afro-Asian bloc at the United Nations to say, "Sanctions have failed. Let us get tougher". Inexorably, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, we would be driven to the point where the only logical consequence, once launched on forceful sanctions, was the use of military force. Every hon. Member knows in his heart that once set on the course of sanctions, if these do not work, unless we are very careful one day we shall be faced with the necessity of using force. Every hon. Member is shirking his conscience if he does not admit that fact.
Now let us suppose that the sanctions we propose eventually, without the use of force, bring Rhodesia to its knees. By then, these proud people will have suffered great hardship, together with the Africans of Rhodesia and people in neighbouring countries who get their livelihood through Rhodesia. We shirk our consciences if we do not admit that these are consequences which will flow from sanctions.
It is worth pausing a few minutes, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), to make quite sure where we are really going in the long run as well as in the short run. We may not have many more opportunities open to us. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) asked me whether I would make practical suggestions. Although I do not think I have any duty to do so, I will try because, unlike many hon. Members, I have lived in that country as well as visited it and I know a great deal how the people there react.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire stressed why Rhodesians had acted in this way. He was right. But I will add one other thing which has been in their minds and has helped to drive them to do such a desperately foolish thing. It was their fear that, as the years dragged on, and as the power in the United Nations of the Afro-Asian bloc grew, one day a British Government would be driven by their own Left-wing supporters and the United Nations to break the Convention and interfere with the internal self-government of Rhodesia.
This has been a very real fear, although the Government have said that they will not do it. I am not saying whether the Rhodesians were right or wrong in that fear, but I am saying that it has been their sentiment that public opinion in the outside world would build up to such an extent that the Constitution would be suspended and they would find themselves in a worse position than for many years past. With these thoughts in mind, they saw the horrors taking place in the Congo. One must try to understand the effect of these events on the Rhodesians, who were just across the frontier. I was out there when some of the worst events in the Congo happened. Hon. Members here find it very easy to talk about how British people should behave, but we should have a great deal of sympathy and understanding for how our people there do behave and how probably every hon. Member here would behave in a similar situation. Let me give only one instance. Do hon. Members opposite realise that morning after morning ordinary Rhodesian people, artisans and so on, opened their morning

papers to see photographs of children disembowelled, nuns slaughtered and monks flogged? Did that have an effect on their way of thinking? Of course it did.

Hon. Members: What about Sharpeville?

Sir F. Bennett: I do not propose to reply to that. What on earth has Sharpe-ville to do with that? Do hon. Members opposite think that because something took place in Sharpeville something else ought to take place in Rhodesia or in the Congo? What is the point of mentioning Sharpeville? Do hon. Members opposite expect Rhodesians on seeing those photographs of little girls disembowelled in the Congo to say, "That does not matter, because someone else has been killed in Sharpeville "? That is too ridiculous to reply to.
I have no hesitation in supporting giving these powers to the Government, because I believe that they are necessary in the circumstances which have arisen and necessary because of the consequential penalties which Rhodesia must suffer. But as regards the future—and this is my constructive suggestion—having passed the Bill, we should have a breathing pause while we consider where the next steps may lead us.
In this context we should start thinking about offering a little carrot to the Rhodesians who may defect from Mr. Smith, as well as merely talking about the stick. We should be suggesting to the Rhodesians the sort of ideas which we in this country have in mind for the restoration of ordinary government and how it can go along. That is the way and the only way to get a proud people who want to belong to respond. Threats will not work. Threats have not worked before and they will not work this time. But if the Rhodesians are given some light at the end of the tunnel so that they can have some idea of the way we see the future of Rhodesia and all the people there, then and only then can we get the response from Rhodesia which we seek.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I came to the debate this afternoon expecting that it would be fairly brief, but a different complexion has been put upon it


by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). In my judgment, their speeches went far beyond any mere comment on the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said that he could not support the Bill. I am not sure whether he will vote against it. Certainly the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, North was a speech against the Bill.
That alters the terms of the controversy in the House and in the country. It appears that there are many hon. Members opposite who wish to speak. Of course, they have every right to do so, but it seems that many of them will wish to speak in the same sense as the right hon. Member for Preston, North and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. In other words, there is serious and substantial opposition to the Bill.

Hon. Members: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Foot: From listening to the speeches I am giving my judgment of the speeches, and I have heard every word of the debate.
The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) must have written his speech before he heard the speeches of his right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend, for it was in a very different tone. His speech was not so different in tone from that of the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) on Friday. However, I do not believe that anybody who had listened to the whole debate could agree that the right hon. Member for Preston, North was advancing towards the Bill the same attitude and view of how to deal with the situation as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral. In that case, a new situation is being created in the debate.

Mr. Hastings: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on Friday made a speech totally inconsistent with the object of the Bill as a whole? Do not opinions differ on both sides of the House?

Mr. Foot: As far as I know, my hon. and learned Friend is the only Member

on this side of the House who holds the views which he expressed in what even for him was an extraordinary outburst of perversity. I do not think that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire can escape from the situation on that basis.
We are having a very important debate. We are discussing the very wide powers for which the Government have asked and the House and the country have a right to know the attitude of the Opposition. I participate in the debate because I believe that the speech of the right hon. Member for Preston, North and the backing which he apparently has in his party, far from producing calmness and coolness throughout the world, can be most inflammatory.
I know that there is a tendency by some hon. Members opposite to sneer when the United Nations is mentioned, but it includes the representatives of most countries. Are we not concerned with the reputation of our country among those representatives? Of course we are. I do not believe that anyone who heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Preston, North could say that it was a speech likely to sustain the British Government's position in New York. If it were believed that his speech had strong support in this country and in the House, it would injure this country's position in New York and its ability to deal with the problem generally. Therefore, the best service which hon. Members opposite who agree with the right hon. Member for Preston, North can do to the House and their consciences is to vote against the Bill. Let us see how many hon. Members are opposed to it.
I am the very last person to question the right of hon. Members to come forward and examine a Bill and the powers which the Government wish to take. That was the basis on which the debate started. Two or three hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) among others, wanted to make inquiries about the powers under the Bill and how they
the measures to be taken. It is absolutely right that such inquiries should be made, even if doing so takes longer than was expected.
But that is very different: from opposing the Government's policy under the cover


of making these inquiries. If that is what hon. Members opposite want to do, let them say so. Some of the statements which have been made, by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in particular, have been incitement to support the rebellion. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said that there was a danger that some of the measures which the Government were taking might cause divisions among the white people in Rhodesia. That was an astonishing statement to have been made in the House.
We have it on the authority of the Government, absolutely supported by the Leader of the Opposition, that there are some people in Rhodesia who have engaged in an act of rebellion. Now some hon. Members are saying that it is shocking that the Government should take action which could cause divisions among those people. If some people in Southern Rhodesia are disloyal, surely it is the duty of everyone concerned to try to cause divisions among the white people there in order to ensure that they should return to their allegiance as swiftly as possible. Therefore, on that statement hon. Gentlemen opposite are playing with something very dangerous.
They have a right if they so think, I suppose, to say that they support the rebellion. It is a very dangerous game to play. But if they want to do so, let them say so. Let the right hon. Member for Preston, North say so. That was what his speech added up to. He did not even deplore the action which had been taken. Almost every sentence he uttered gave encouragement to those in Rhodesia who are in revolt against the Crown. I do not know which speeches here will be reported in Rhodesia, but the right hon. Gentleman's speech is very likely to be reported. I think that his speech will get through, and I think that that of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire will get through. Why? Because it helps them. The Rhodesian Government have a rigid Hitlerian censorship, and they can pick and choose.
The whole country should know that one of the reasons for the act of rebellion in Southern Rhodesia is that for years there have been people in this country encouraging them to go towards that brink and over it. I believe that there is a speech being delivered in another place

this evening by a member of the right hon. Gentleman's party who for years has been encouraging the Government of Southern Rhodesia to defy the policy of Her Majesty's Government, both the present Administration and the previous one. I cannot quote the noble Lord, Lord Salisbury, but over the years, in association with some other members of the other place, he has been saying to the people of Southern Rhodesia that they have many friends here who would assist them and who favour their point of view. Although I strongly disagree with the incitements that they have given, I can understand their saying it before, but it is a very different thing to say it after 11th November than to say it before. So the right hon. Gentleman had better make up his mind.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman, speaking at 20 minutes to seven, has heard two speeches from this side of which he disapproves and one from his own side last Friday. Is it not too early in the evening to draw conclusions and build the situation up to the point of saying that the Opposition are against the Bill?

Mr. Foot: I have listened to every word that has been spoken in the debate, and I have a right to comment on the speeches that have so far been made, especially speeches by important Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman for Preston, North is a very eminent Member who apparently speaks for quite a number. What the House and the country have to discover is how many hon. Members agree with him. I want to know whether the Leader of the Opposition agrees with him. I dare say there are some hon. Members on his side, like the hon. Gentleman for Torquay, who disagree with what has been said, and I pointed that out at the beginning of my speech. I emphasised that he disagreed, and that if he had only listened to what his right hon. and hon. Friends had said he would have had to alter what he said.
It is a fact that some hon. Members are giving what I should decribe as aid and comfort to those who have engaged in this act against the Crown, and the House has a right to have the facts known very plainly. It can be extremely dangerous,


because, just as we ought to have the imaginative sympathy to understand how British people who have close associations with Southern Rhodesia over the years feel, so we ought to have the imaginative sympathy to understand how Africans feel about the situation. The hon. Gentleman for Torquay complained because an hon. Member on this side asked, "What about Sharpeville?", and he wanted to know what Sharpeville had to do with it. What Sharpeville has to do with it is that we were told about the fears of white people in Southern Rhodesia. The fear of even more subjects in Southern Rhodesia is that they will see what has happened in South Africa, and one of the things that have happened is Sharpeville. That is the relevance of Sharpeville to the present situation.
Before 11th November and even more since 11th November, a whole series of measures of a rigorous police state is taking place in Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, hon. Members of, the House have a responsibility to all the people there, and no one can say that our responsibility must be greater to the 200,000 white people than to the 4 million coloured people. That is what the right hon. Gentleman says, in effect.
What effect will it have in New York at the United Nations, throughout Africa and throughout the world if the House says that we are more concerned with the white population of Rhodesia than with the much larger coloured population? If we say that, we abandon any claim for this country being able to assert that we should have responsibility in the matter. It is an incitement to race war to say that.

Sir F. Benuett: The hon. Gentleman for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has made frequent reference to my remarks. I made the plea that I did for understanding of the way that the white population felt. They are the people who are in rebellion at the present time, but I did not forget the African feeling. That is not the matter under debate at the moment.

Mr. Foot: I was replying to the hon. Gentleman's repudiation of the mention of Sharpeville. I was trying to show the hon. Gentleman why many people in Southern Rhodesia and throughout the

world think that what: happened at Sharpeville has a direct relevance to what is happening in Southern Rhodesia today. They have every right to think that, because we have a police state which every hour and every day is being more rigorously enforced in a country for which we are responsible.
I hope that the House will pass this Enabling Bill with the largest possible majority. I hope that anyone who sincerely opposes it will vote against it so that we know exactly where we are, and I hope that when the leaders of the Opposition support the Enabling Bill, as I understand they are to do, it will not merely be a vote in the letter but in the spirit as well to help sustain the Government in their policy.
We are told by the right hon. Gentleman for Preston, North that one of his complaints is that under the Bill the 1961 Constitution conceivably might be suspended. He wants an assurance that nothing like that will occur. If he is going to demand assurances of that nature, we will demand assurances on the other side, because it cannot be the situation that, following the revolt, we can revert to the 1961 Constitution exactly as before and say to the white people of Southern Rhodesia, "We are quite prepared to go back to the position as it was prior to 11th November". That is totally unrealistic. It may be said by some that we should make that offer to attract white people in Southern Rhodesia to assist us. What about the African people? If we said from the House that automatically the assurance was given that once the revolt was called off the 1961 Constitution would be re-established, it would be regarded as an outrage by the loyal subjects of the Crown in Southern Rhodesia, not the disloyal ones.
Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman says that he wants an assurance that there will be no escalation. That is a ridiculous request. The Government cannot be certain that the economic sanctions that they have proposed or the measures that they have taken are going to be effective. Some people have different views about them. Some people think that they may be effective, others think that possibly they will be effective, while others think that they will be extremely effective. But the Government cannot be sure.
On Friday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister quoted Sir Winston Churchill and used the phrase," all necessary lengths". I think that is right. It would be the only tolerable and honourable position for the Government to take. When I vote for the Bill, that is what I think I shall be voting for—all necessary lengths to ensure that the rebellion is put down. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including military force?"] An hon. Member opposite interrupts me and asks, "Including military force?" My answer to him would be, yes, partly for the right reasons that the Prime Minister has indicated and partly for the reasons that were raised and discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne a little earlier in the debate. He asked what is going to happen to those people in Southern Rhodesia who are loyal to the Crown and who stand by their allegiance, whether they are European or African? Supposing they are made the victims of persecution by the police state in Southern Rhodesia. Are we to leave them in the lurch?
I am not in favour of that. For a variety of reasons, I hope and believe that the situation can be dealt with short of military force. But we may come to it. I agree that it is extremely unpleasant, but we have to face it as we have faced it before. I do not know what other hon. Gentleman think about it, but I am not prepared to vote for a situation where we say that we can keep 50,000 troops in Malaya, I do not know how many troops in Aden and many thousands of troops in some other parts of the world, but that it is impossible for us to take military action in the most extreme situation in Southern Rhodesia.
I do not believe that that is a tenable position for Her Majesty's Government, so I believe that the policy for which this House will be voting tonight when it votes for this Bill is, in the words taken from Sir Winston Churchill's speech, in a different context admittedly, and which have a Cromwellian flavour, "all necessary steps". If in six months or a year the situation were to be that Mr. Smith and his illegal Government were still holding plenary power in Southern Rhodesia, still clamping their police state on the 4 million Africans, this country would have suffered one of

the most humiliating defeats in its history. It would have suffered a defeat from which our reputation could never recover all over Africa. This country's position would be utterly denuded of moral authority throughout the world.
This is the situation, and therefore I believe that this debate is one of the utmost seriousness, and when we vote for this Measure I believe we should all be willing to vote for "all necessary steps ". But let those who are not prepared to support it leave us now. Let them tell us now that they are not prepared to do it. Let them tell us by their votes, and let the rest of us go on and sustain the honour of this country.

6.51 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: In this grave situation I believe that no hon. Member who speaks in this House should, if he can possibly avoid it, say anything which is going unnecessarily to raise the temperature—[Interrupton.]—or to introduce cross-currents into the House. I believe that there are few hon. Members who feel like the hon. Member who interrupted me just now. We are in a grave situation indeed, and I must say with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that I think it a pity that he introduced the note that he did just now.
I believe that I have the right and the duty to say why I am supporting this Bill this evening, and I propose to do so. The Law Officers of the Crown, and the immediately preceding Attorney-General, have told us this afternoon that if we are not going to abdicate our responsibility in Rhodesia these measures are necessary as a matter of law, and as one of their predecessors I humbly agree with them. There has been no dispute about that.
What is our responsibility in Rhodesia? We annexed it in 1921, and the Crown today is responsible for peace. order and good government in that territory, and this House of Commons has to decide today whether it is prepared to maintain and reinforce that duty and responsibility, or not. That is the issue that we have to decide today.
Whether it is right or wrong that we should have arrived at the position where the decision has to be made is nothing to do with it. Nor is it very much to


do with it what the consequences are going to be. We have a responsibility. It may be worth while remembering that Members of Parliament swear an oath of allegiance, as well as other people, and I have that in my mind. I do not believe, therefore, that we need discuss the legalities of this matter.
What I am concerned with more is the practical matter, and surely the most important thing is that if we are decided that we will maintain our position and perform our duties and responsibilities, then nobody in the world should have any doubt about it. There is at the moment doubt about it. There is doubt about it, first, in Rhodesia, and the reason for that, I grieve to see, according to the evidence—and there is plenty of it—is very largely repression and censorship. It is not possible for people there to get information as to what is going on, and, indeed, we do not know what they are being told, but we can gather some idea. I will turn to that in a moment: or two, but it is also clear, unfortunately, that people in this country do not understand either, and, with proper respect and restraint, I think that is a matter for strong complaint that both The Times and the B.B.C., and possibly other organs—but those are enough in all conscience—have not been as careful as they might have been in this matter.
I refer here particularly to the position of the judges. There are many right hon. and hon. Members in this House who have met Chief Justice Beadle. I may be prejudiced—I am—because he is a personal friend of mine, and a man for whom I have the greatest possible respect, but it was said in The Times today:
The important meeting of judiciary yesterday ended with a statement saying that ' the judges of the High Court will continue to perform their duties in accordance with the law '—which 
adds The Times correspondent from Salisbury
leaves unsettled the question of which law.
That clearly implies that the Chief Justice, either intentionally or unintentionally, was creating an ambiguity. That is an insult to him as a lawyer, because no competent lawyer today could say that there were two laws in Rhodesia. There is only one, and we have to understand

that, whether we like it or not, and whatever the consequences may be.
It is an unfortunate fact that on the B.B.C. at 10 o'clock last night I heard the same thing said, and the language was almost literally identical, which suggests to me, with my possibly nasty legal mind, that it was something that was put out in Rhodesia, gobbled up by the correspondent there, and ladled out here. If people in this country think, as one of my constituents thought when he rang me up in the early hours of this morning, having read this and become very indignant, that the judges in Rhodesia are dithering, that is wrong. That is the practical reason why we have to pass this Bill today, and pass it with the largest possible majority—on this I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—to show that, however much we dislike it, however difficult it is and whatever the consequences may be, we know what our responsibility is in this House of Commons, and we are prepared to discharge it.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: It was refreshing to hear the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) after one or two of the speeches that we have heard from this side of the House today. May I say how much I agree with everything the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, save and except that I do not think he was justified in chiding the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for his speech. Had he heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) I think he would have understood—

Sir L. Heald: I heard it.

Mr. Hooson: —the reason for it.
It seems to me that the situation can be analysed quite simply. There are Members in this House this evening who are really saying that the rebel Government in Rhodesia should get away with it, that we should disapprove of what they have done and should say "Tut, tut", but, nevertheless, that they should get away with it. Fortunately, this idea is confined to a very small minority. It is only fair that we should make it clear, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson)


did, that this is not the view of the Opposition Front Bench.
Nevertheless, this other view exists. Surely, what the forum of world opinion is asking today is, "Is Britain really serious in her attitude towards Southern Rhodesia? Does she really intend to put down this rebellion?" Everybody agrees that it is a rebellion, but there is a great question mark against the seriousness of our intentions in the matter. In a moving and sincere speech the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) submitted that we ought to understand the position of the people of Southern Rhodesia. Many people who entirely disapprove of the attitude of the Government of Southern Rhodesia nevertheless understand their position. It is possible to understand the position of the people in the Confederate States of America at the time of the Civil War, and to understand the attitude of the minority in Ireland who for years were afraid of the Catholic and Irish majority there. But it is not a question merely of understanding; we have been asked from certain quarters in this House not only to understand the attitude of these people but to approve of it.
The right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery) asked what was the intention of the Government in regard to Rhodesia—was it to create economic chaos? Was it to bring Rhodesia to its knees? I would ask him what he intends to happen in Rhodesia: that treason shall prosper, that we should accept a coup d'etat and do nothing about it, save to say that we disapprove and that they should not have done it? As the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey said, this is a matter about which there can be no issue on the question of principle. We have not only a legal but a moral responsibility as a trustee of Southern Rhodesia.
I now turn to some of the details of the Bill. It is important that sanctions should be applied and that these should be effective. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Liberal Party, who said on Friday last that the only point of having sanctions is to make them effective, and that to be effective they must be as short and sharp as possible. If I have any criticism to

offer of the Government it is that their sanctions are not severe enough. From the view both of this country and of Rhodesia—whether we speak of the white or the black population—it is far better that those sanctions shall be severe and short rather than half-hearted and long drawn out, and a cause of bitterness on both sides.
If the concept of sanctions is merely that we shall try to punish the Government of Rhodesia and then, eventually, accept the situation of their being the de facto Government, there is no point in applying sanctions at all. As I understand the Government's view, the objects of the exercise—and the only objects— are to crush the rebellion there and restore the rule of law, reminding loyal Rhodesians of their allegiance to the Crown. But although I agree that it is necessary for the Government to have very wide powers to do this—indeed, their attitude would not be credible unless they took very wide powers—we all know that many innocent people suffer in rebellions and in the counter-measures that are taken to deal with them.
It is the duty of this House to look at the Bill, and any Orders made under it, as closely as possible, in order to try to minimise the danger to innocent individuals who might be otherwise enmeshed. I therefore want to refer to one or two matters that strike me. Having read the Bill, and listened to the Attorney-General this afternoon and read his statement on Friday, it occurs to me that certain matters ought to be made clear.
The position of the Chief Justice and the six judges in Rhodesia has been referred to. We have heard that they have been threatened with dismissal unless they accept the de facto Government as the de jure Government in Rhodesia. It should be made clear that this country is 100 per cent. behind the judges, and that if they are dismissed they will be fully compensated. They should be directed as to their own position. It is a very difficult situation for judges with families. We know that what is a hot debating point today may in the course of time be forgotten, and that these may become forgotten men. It has happened before in history. The Government should make their position absolutely clear now.
If there are any whom we should reassure in this situation it is those people


who are carrying out their day-to-day work in Rhodesia, trying to uphold the rule of law in very much more difficult circumstances than those in which we are discussing the matter in this Chamber. It is incumbent on the Government to give guidance as to the definition of treasonability in this context. I do not take exception to the statement made by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General on Friday, when he suggested that on the normal canons of interpretation when people are in the situation in which the rebel Government find themselves in Rhodesia the people who instigated and who are taking part in the rebellion are probably guilty of treason. But where does this end? The concept of treasonability in this context could be as wild a horse as any for public policy to control.
Many innocent people in Rhodesia will be required to do work against sanctions. Let us consider the case of an employee who, in the course of his employment, is asked by his employer to do an act which is intended by that employer, to contravene the sanctions imposed upon the illegal Government and who, without thinking very much about it, does this act. It might become a habit. Does he thereby commit treason? It is very important to give clearer guidance than has been given hitherto.
I know that the Law Officers have had a great deal on their plates and that it has been difficult to go into the details of this matter, but it is necessary that far greater guidance should be given than has hitherto been given on this matter. For example, what is the operative law now? We know that the criminal law of Rhodesia is the common law and the law of this country as amended or changed by Rhodesian laws, and that the Roman-Dutch law no longer applies, but there are considerable differences between the law of this country and the law of Rhodesia in the development of the criminal law. By what system is treasonability to be decided now that we are in the present situation of government by the Governor—de lure government by the Governor and the Secretary of State?
Should not we have dissolved the Rhodesian Parliament? As I understand it, although the Rhodesian Government have been dismissed the Legislative

Assembly is still in being. Surely it should be incumbent on this Government to take steps to dismiss the Rhodesian Legislative Assembly. Further, would it not be right to suspend the 1961 Constitution? I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) that powers certainly exist within the Bill to suspend the Constitution, and I would have thought that this was the right step to take at the present time.
It is absolute nonsense to think that after a rebellion of this kind it is possible to go back to the 1961 Constitution as it was. Certainly now that these events have been put in train we do not know where they will end, and it must be possible for the Government to amend and, if necessary, suspend the Constitution completely. When we eventually have a settlement of this problem it will not be possible to go back to the 1961 Constitution.
I echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said that it is necessary to retain national unity on this problem. There can be no doubt about the responsibility of any Government, whatever its complexion, in this situation. The Government have taken measures designed to restore lawful government to Rhodesia. I should have thought that anybody who owes allegiance as a Member of this House owes it to his constituency and to his conscience to support the Government in the measures which they are taking to deal with this situation.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: It would take the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) nearly to persuade me, against my better judgment, so far as voting is concerned. He nearly succeeded, by his taunting and his mischief-making speech, in persuading me not to vote against the Bill. It was just mischief, so he did not quite succeed.
However, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale spelled out the reasons why I not only cannot support the Bill but shall oppose it. He spelled out these reasons very clearly, as they were spelled out by one of my hon. Friends, but he accepts a different view of what the result of his spelling out should be. What the hon. Member said, if I correctly interpreted it, the serious part of his speech amongst


all the fun, was that the Bill will enable the Government to impose all sorts and manner of sanctions in order to bring about a desired end.
As I understand it from the Prime Minister, the desired end is that sufficient pressure should be put upon the illegal Government—or, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) so generously called them, "The gang of people whom we have declared by this Bill to be traitors"—so as to stop the illegal regime from operating at all, and we are attempting, by using sanctions of various sorts, to bring down the rebels and replace them with some other, unspecified, type of regime in Rhodesia.
In the first place, history does not support the view—and my hon. Friends who have had far more experience of Rhodesia than I have would, I think, support me in this—that one can bring down people of this sort of resolve and courage, who are misguided, perhaps, but courageous nevertheless, by hemming them in with closer and closer regulations and by trying to make them suffer more and more. The only result of that, normally, is to give them more loyal supporters. If this be so, then what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale went on to say is, of course, true, that the Government having been caught up in their own theory that they can bring down the rebel Government by sanctions, if they fail to bring them down by sanctions, have no other course, if they are a Government at all, but to follow their policy to its logical conclusion.
Its logical conclusion, if sanctions fail and if we are not to allow U.N.O. to do the job for us, must be that the British Government are bound to go further than trade sanctions of that type. That means the use of force. I am not willing to give my support to that, though I fully realise that nothing I can say will stop the unanimity on the two Front Benches. Nothing I can say will alter the decision tonight, of the House of Commons at any rate, on the Bill.
Nevertheless, surely each one of us in the House—this is about the only point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—has a right to have a personal view. Surely every one of us—

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: No one is denying my hon. Friend that right.

Mr. Fell: My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) says that no one is denying me that right. With the greatest respect, I have been here only 15 years—I give some years to my hon. Friend—but, by heavens, people have tried on various occasions to deny me the right to express my own views. I merely say—

Sir G. Nicholson: rose—

Mr. Fell: I am very sorry. I did not want in any way to have an argument with a very old friend of mine on my side of the House. I am merely saying that not only do we have that right, we also have a duty, if we believe that a Measure of this sort is wrong, and can do nothing but harm in a given situation, to vote against it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Member has known me long enough to know that I am in the most complete agreement with what he is claiming as the right of every private Member of the House. We all appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courage and sincerity in what he is saying. Of course he is entitled to his view: he is entitled to state it and to vote for it, but if he thinks that the Government's policy is wrong, what interests me is, what in his opinion would be right?

Mr. Fell: I wonder if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will forgive me. It so happens that I was lucky enough—or unlucky enough: I am not sure which—to win the Ballot and I have put down for discussion Central Africa. Therefore, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House tonight.
I wanted to explain the reason why I intend to vote against the Bill, and I have almost done that. I also wanted to ask the Attorney-General one question.
On Friday, in talking about treason, he said:
But it is right that I should point out in general terms that there is abundant authority for the conclusion that conduct of the kind that has taken place is treasonable.
He went on:
So would be steps taken by anyone whether in Rhodesia or in this country, or by anyone else owing allegiance to the Crown, with


the intention of furthering the objectives of the illegal regime or inciting others to take such steps."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1965: Vol. 720, c. 516.]
That was very clear. So it would be treasonable not only in Rhodesia but also in this country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was questioned on this and asked to explain it a little more. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to discussion in the Press. Presumably he means that discussion of any kind or on radio or television would obviously be covered.
The Attorney-General answered:
Clearly that is so. When I say ' permitted ' "—
he had said "permitted" earlier—
I mean that which is legal under the law. We are not going to set up any kind of censorship in this situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 522.]
The question I put to the Attorney-General is this. Am I not right in my interpretation of what he said, that, by that very definition, he did set up a censorship in this country? I must not enter into a legal argument, for I am not qualified, but he said that such action would be treasonable both in Rhodesia and in this country. Before I refer again to what he said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps I cught to read the passage which I left out in my first quotation. The Attorney-General said:
Unlike the Rhodesian Government, it is not the intention of this Government to stifle the free expression of opinion "—
fine—we are all with him there—
and clearly the free range of discussion about these matters conducted in the Press will be permitted.
Then came the question from my right hon. Friend to clear up the point as regards television, radio and so on— and, one hopes, individuals talking and arguing about these matters or even making speeches outside the House—to which the Attorney-General replied with the answer I have already quoted,
Clearly that is so. When I say ' permitted ', I mean that which is legal under the law ".
If that means anything, it means that the law of treason can apply to anyone in this country who takes any part in

the activities defined by the Attorney-General, that is, the activities to which he referred in the words reported in c. 516 of HANSARD, beginning
But it is right that I should point out in general terms …
I hope that we can have an answer on this point this evening for it is extremely important. In my view, the Government are not willing to take responsibility for their own actions in the eyes of the country, but they have left themselves a loophole should they think fit to bring an action against anyone at all who happened to disagree with their view of the Rhodesian situation.
I am grateful for having been called and the opportunity to make a short intervention to explain why I shall vote against the Bill.

7.22 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Like every other hon. Member, I am extremely troubled by the sad and grievous news of what has happened in Rhodesia, and those hon. and right hon. Members—and there are many on both sides of the House—who have visited Rhodesia and been the guests of the Rhodesian leaders as well as meeting them and their representatives here feel it, perhaps, even more. I was very interested in the wise speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), in which he said that the object of the Bill was not stated in it. As I followed our debate last Friday, it became fairly clear that the object of the Government and, I am sure, of the whole House, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), a former Attorney-General, also said, was to restore law and order in Rhodesia. That is the main objective.
We must look at the Bill in that light. I have always been a great supporter of the 1961 Constitution, and I have spent many hours talking about it to Rhode sians of all colours, begging them to make that Constitution work. I thought it a very sad day when the African nationalists refused to take part. But in any enterprise, be it war, commerce or sport, it is wise, when weighing up a situation, to look at it sometimes through the eyes of the people on the other side of the hill. I feel that, with the possible exception


of one or two speeches, we have not in this House been considering enough how some people in Rhodesia may be thinking at this time.
I was struck years ago by the attitude of those Rhodesians who did not vote for federation. They were the forerunners of the present National Front Party. They always felt, probably rightly, that if the vote had not gone for federation they would have got complete Dominion status and independence on their own. That thought has run through the minds of these Rhodesians ever since. In their view, and in ours too, the Smith Government was constitutionally elected. This has not been a rebellion or revolution with bloodshed.
I fully realise the many great difficulties facing this country and the Government today, and the few remarks which I have to make will be made in a helpful spirit. I can see that there could be a case, after what the Rhodesians have done, for letting them go their own way, regarding them as completely outside the Commonwealth and letting them take their own position in the world. But, of course, this is not the way we in this country behave or mean to behave. We regard them still as British, and the Government there is vested in the present Governor. It seems a little illogical, if we have dismissed the Smith Ministers and we still recognise the Governor, that Rhodesia should cease to have Preference on her goods coming here.
Is our objective under the Bill also to placate world opinion? If it is, we must be seen to be just and not vindictive. I have been sad to hear some speeches in the House, both today and on Friday, which have had an undercurrent of vindictiveness. I shall not allude directly to the hon. Member who made the remark, because I do not see him in the Chamber at the moment, but I could not help thinking that someone who refers already to the Rhodesians as the enemy does nothing but damage to what we all want to bring about. Moreover, he said it almost immediately after the Attorney-General had said that Rhodesians were still British subjects.
It is sad that the Prime Minister failed in what he tried to do, but some of my hon. Friends and I were surprised at the

Government's action in immediately prohibiting the import of Rhodesian tobacco, without reference to the House of Commons. This took some of us who are without legal training rather by surprise, and, though I do not question the legality of that action under the 1939 Act, I cannot help thinking that, in such an explosive matter as this, it might have been wiser for the Government to have said, "We will at least discuss this before taking action and get the approval of the House of Commons". This is one reason why some of us are inclined to ask whether it is right to pass this Bill as it stands, giving a blank cheque to the Government. We want an assurance that what they intend to do will not be vindictive.
I beg the House for moderation and to face the realities of the situation, even if we do not like them. I do not mind any Government being stupid and afterwards having to withdraw from some position which they have taken up. What I do not like, because I love this place so much, is the Houses of Parliament being made to look ridiculous.
I may be wrong, but, from my knowledge of Rhodesia, the Government's hope, as I understand it, cannot succeed. I gather that what they are hoping is that they will be able to gather round the Governor and the Chief Justice the more liberal elements in Rhodesia who will be instrumental in forming a new Government independent of the Smith regime. This seems to be a thought underlying some of the speeches we have heard today, but, in my humble opinion, it is no more than a pipe-dream in cloud-cuckoo-land. These elements have long been dissipated. The last election in Rhodesia was entirely over U.D.I., and Smith won almost unanimous support. Even as great a figure as Sir Roy Welensky was defeated in a by-election. I cannot see that these people will desert Smith now that he has given them what they wanted.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the last election and said that it was held over U.D.I. I seem clearly to remember Mr. Smith saying that U.D.I. had been thrown out of the window, probably for good. As I understood the position, therefore, the election was not


about U.D.I. After the election Mr. Smith made it clear that he would be consulting public opinion before such a declaration was made.

Sir H. Harrison: I think that it has been perfectly clear that Mr. Smith has had all his support on the basis that he was leading them to independence. Otherwise, I do not believe that he would have won the election.

Sir T. Beamish: indicated dissent.

Sir H. Harrison: As I was saying, I do not believe that a great many people will desert Smith. The tougher the sanctions the more will those people remain united behind him. There will be hatred and bitterness, but sooner or later Her Majesty's Government, or the next Conservative Government, will have to deal with a de facto Government, probably that of Mr. Smith, existing in Rhodesia. Or is it Her Majesty's Government's intention, as has been suggested, to hope that disorder and rioting may take place?
We are appealing to people to keep law and order, yet they will probably have to take their orders from Smith's regime. Therefore, I am worried lest these sanctions, if applied, produce no immediate result. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made a practical speech. How often in this House have we faced the situation of a de facto Government which we did not like and of which we did not approve but which we soon recognised? The most sad case in my memory occurred after independence being given to Zanzibar. A revolutionary Government took over and there was great massacre. However, within a few months this House recognised that de facto Government. If the sanctions are ineffective in, say, six months or a year, will the Prime Minister call them off or will he use greater sanctions and more force? When will these things come to a head? Do not we appear to be relying on the police there to maintain law and order?
It is fair to say that it always takes two to make a quarrel. It is also fair to say that people some distance from the scene are not always right. History has shown this. With great respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who talk so much about the brotherhood of man and who voted to abolish hanging and cor- 
poral punishment, there is a section among them who seem to think that we are almost living in the gunboat era. From reading history, can. anyone really say that the British Government behaved impeccably at the time of American Independence? When history comes to be written of this period, I hope it will be said that Her Majesty's Government and all hon. Members bore in mind the realities of the situation—a few of which I have mentioned and others of which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. We must try to be sure that Her Majesty's Government act in the best interests of all concerned, in this country and in Rhodesia.

7.36 p.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: In a short time Parliament will be asked to delegate certain powers to the Executive. That is what this Bill is about. We should, therefore, consider just what are the powers we are delegating. The Attorney-General gave a number of legal explanations, for which I was grateful, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will anwer one or two I wish to put.Clause 2(5) stated:
An Order in Council under this section shall be laid before Parliament after being made and shall expire at the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which it was made unless during that period it is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
The expiration of an Order in pursuance of this subsection shall not affect the operation of the Order as respects things previously done or omitted to be done or the power to make a new Order …".
Am I right in thinking that the legal position is that an Order would expire, having run its 28 days, and that a new and identical Order could be introduced the next day so that that situation could be repeated on and on? In other words, is Parliament being asked to give that blank cheque? I am not suggesting that the Government will do this, but it shows that this is a badly drafted Bill. After all, it is a rushed Measure and I would like to be sure of the legal position that will result from it once it is passed.
Even if what I have suggested is not correct, what will be the result of this Clause? We will give powers to the Government by Order in Council and they will come into force at once. Within a certain period, perhaps at weeks, we


shall be able to debate the matter. Even if we do, certain things will have occurred as a result of that Order in Council, so that such a debate may be completely stultified. These are serious matters, and I hope that whatever sanctions are to be imposed will be considered seriously on the basis of whether it is right and proper to impose them. I hope that we shall look at such sanctions on the basis of whether or not it is right to impose whatever sanctions flow naturally from the decision of Southern Rhodesia to leave the Commonwealth. I hope that it will not be considered right to impose "punitive" sanctions. As I see it, the only way for the House not to delegate all of these powers is to consider every Order in Council before it comes into force. In this connection, Clause 3(2) states:
… no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this subsection unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
Would this not be a good method, since it already appears in the Bill, to allow the House to consider these important and difficult matters as they arise. By passing this Bill we are starting on a road today, and where it may lead us no one here can say.

7.39 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I had expected that this debate would be mainly confined to an interchange of legal opinions on the various aspects of what is primarily a lawyers' Bill, but I am glad that the House has decided that the occasion calls for something rather more than that. I would begin by asking the Attorney-General the same question that I asked when he sat down, which is concerned with the legal aspect. I may have so ineptly phrased my question that he misunderstood its purpose. Can we have an assurance from the Government that anything in an Order in Council introduced under this Bill—assuming that it becomes an Act of Parliament—will be such that it is capable of being enforced? If it is not capable of being enforced, it should not be introduced; still less ought it to be passed by Parliament.
This is a very grave occasion, indeed. If I may say so, I think that the House

of Commons has risen to it as it should have done. This Bill is an awful Bill, in the true meaning of the word "awful ". We ought to stand in awe at the thought of what we are doing. What are we doing? We are giving powers to a Government to deal legislatively with former members of our Commonwealth as though they had become enemies threatening our State here. That is what this Bill does. That is the awful thing that U.D.I. has forced this country to do.
This is a very grave thing that we have to do, and if it comes to apportioning blame, let me say that none of us who has been in this House since 1945 is blameless—none of us. Many things have brought this situation upon us, and by no means the major part of bringing it upon us can be laid at the door of Mr. Smith and his colleagues. This is a very long story. It goes back to before the Second World War. It goes back, perhaps, to the concept of international Communism—the trading on the ignorance of backward people. This really lies at the root of this Bill, because this is what has run through Africa as it has run through other Continents. It is this that has made it impossible to provide stable Government as free as we should like to see it. It is these things that have brought us to this appalling pass.
After the Second World War, what did we do? We set up a world machinery based on what I believe to be the utter and complete fallacy that when one has an international dispute of some kind, one is the better likely to solve it by bringing in more people than would otherwise be automatically involved. That is what the United Nations invariably does. The contribution made to the present inflammatory position in Southern Rhodesia by those using the United Nations Organisation as it was never intended to be used, and abusing the power it gave them, is a very material factor in relation to this Bill, and the need for it." Hope springs eternal", they say. At the end of a war such as the Second World War it was natural that man should cling to any hope of preventing war he could possibly find.
However, if we look at what has happened since 1945 in relation to Southern Rhodesia, and which has made this Bill necessary, the first thing that stands out


is that when the Central African Federation was first being thought of and mooted, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, now the Secretary of State for Wales—the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths)—gave instructions that district officers should not promote the idea of the Central African Federation in advance of its being passed by this Parliament. Then, perhaps, both Sir Roy Welensky and ourselves made a mistake over whether or not Dominion status should ever have been sought for the Federation, and whether, having been sought, it should have been granted.
This is all looking down the road. All those of us who have been in this House since 1945 are in this, so let us not now seek to apportion blame. Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) that none of us, least of all those who have served in previous Governments, ought now to seek to make one solitary party point against the present Administration on this issue. This is an inherited problem which the present Government have to handle. It is a sorry story, from the days of the Labour Government of 1945–51 down to the last Conservative Administration that ended in October, 1964.
It is a long story of collective responsibility. I know that my hon. Friends who were here then will recall occasions when, at one moment, our committees met and applauded Sir Roy Welensky to the roof for castigating our Government of the day, and the following week we had the Commonwealth Secretary or the Colonial Secretary and cheered him, too, for saying exactly the opposite. Month after month this went on. I remember protesting about it. There is a collective responsibility here that none of us can opt out of.
That being so, what have we to do today? In my view, we have to take the appropriate steps to ensure the maximum pause for consideration and reflection and the minimum of provocation, and as near to certainty as we can achieve to making sure that whatever we decide is capable of enforcement. If we approach the problem in that way we are entitled to ask the Government whether they are prepared to give us a solemn undertaking that they will introduce Orders only when they are absolutely

satisfied that there are no means still open to them for further consultation.
When I speak of "further consultation" I do not restrict that consultation only to Mr. Smith and the illegal Government of Rhodesia. There are others—I named one on Friday, and I shall not name any more tonight—who may be able to help in this matter. I should like an assurance that before any of these Orders is introduced, the Government will have done everything they can to have consultation with whomsoever they find it possible to get in touch with on the subject of Rhodesia.
The second assurance I ask for, if I am to vote for the Bill, is that no Order will be introduced which the Government know when they introduce it is incapable of enforcement. In that connection, I would refer once again to what I said on Friday. The dilemma in which the Armed Forces in Rhodesia find themselves is bad enough, and I hope that steps are being taken, as I asked on Friday, to ensure that as many of them as possible of all ranks are made fully aware of the peril they put themselves in under military law unless they obey the Governor.
But there is also a great peril in which our own troops could all too easily find themselves. Some of us have recollections—for me they are recollections of boyhood; for others, recollections of adult life—of the Curragh incident. I do not want to see any member of the British Forces put in the position of having to take a sort of decision some men had to take then. It could happen all too easily.
I therefore once again ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman: can we have an assurance that no Order will be introduced under this Measure that is not capable of being enforced? If the Government were to introduce an Order which could be enforced only by military action, they themselves having made up their minds that no military action should ever be taken, it would mean, in fact, that they were bluffing those to be affected by the Order. This is one thing which must not be allowed to happen. No Order which will be found to be bluff ought to be tolerated. I wish to make quite clear to the Government that if I support the Bill I shall


oppose any Order which I think contains the slightest bluff.
I hope that I have been fair in what I have said and I hope that I have not been unfair to previous Administrations now represented on this side of the House. Whatever else I say I want to make quite clear, should any of the remarks I have made tonight be quoted in Rhodesia, that U.D.I. was the end of a long road. It is folly and danger, not only to the future of Rhodesia but to world peace as a whole, or could become so all too easily. If we are to solve this problem we have to find a way of burying every hatchet which on both sides it is possible to bury. The Government themselves have to avoid being over-precipitate, but whatever they do, be it by sanctions or whatever form of action, let it be action which they know can be effective and enforced.
In the words of Matthew Arnold:
I say, fear not; life still leaves human effort scope,
But, since life teems with ill, nurse no extravagant hope,
Because thou must not dream, thou need'st not then despair.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Later this week we shall be attempting to censure Her Majesty's Government. In this debate today, however, there has been shown considerable understanding of the difficulties in which Her Majesty's present Government find themselves. Throughout these difficult weeks in which Her Majesty's Government have attempted to find a solution for Rhodesia they have had the full support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. It is certainly no fault of the Conservative Party that the Government's Rhodesian policy has miscarried, but I must in justice say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was right when he said on Friday that this was an avoidable tragedy. It is a tragedy arising from the long years of mistrust between Rhodesian Governments and British Governments and arising from a failure of imagination, sympathy and understanding in London towards the difficulties of those people of various races 6,000 miles away.
At the end of his broadcast and later in this House the Prime Minister said that in dealing with Mr. Smith he thought that at times he was dealing with someone who was living in another century, almost in another world. Those words were true words because indeed Rhodesia is another world and we cannot judge Rhodesia simply by the criteria and standards of public life and modern democracy here in Britain. I cannot for the life of me understand why the negotiations ended just as they did. I cannot understand why the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State for Commonwealth relations did not remain behind in Salisbury. I have said this before in this House; I cannot understand it. Here was a very difficult dealing to be done. Surely it was common prudence, common businesslike common sense for one member of Her Majesty's Government to stay on the spot to endeavour to clinch whatever deal might have been made.
I regret so much the lack of understanding shown by Her Majesty's Government in the sneering references to the chiefs. After all, in Rhodesia we are dealing with a society which is largely a tribal society. We should not sneer at these people because they are less advanced than we are. I thought it a great pity that the chiefs should be spoken of in that way. It was even more regrettable than the extraordinarily inept description of those who now, alas, are rebels as "frightened little men ".
We have heard again in this House of the state of emergency brought in before the unilateral declaration of independence. It is not altogether surprising that there should a state of emergency in Southern Rhodesia. At a time when the United States as well as the United Kingdom have stopped the export of arms to Rhodesia, arms are being smuggled into Rhodesia across the Zambesi for the purposes of a revolutionary overthrow of whatever regime there now is in that country. It is not surprising that there is a state of emergency in Rhodesia when leaders whom we are often asked to accept as responsible leaders of African Nationalist movements have been making statements which are tantamount to calling on the African population to slaughter their white fellow subjects in Rhodesia.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) showed no disposition tonight to want to limit this debate. He is very jealous for the rights of the House of Commons and of individual hon. Members. I am glad that there is no disposition in this House for us to proceed with undue and unworthy haste with this Measure, because this is a very serious Measure. I understand why the Government want it to go through quickly. This is reasonable, but if the emergency was so great it would have been quite possible for this House to have met yesterday. I have not long been a Member of this House, but I can remember an occasion on which we sat on a Sunday and we were not at war. That could have been done. It is right that this House should be able to discuss this matter, not in any spirit of obstruct tiveness but so that the different views in the House can be expressed.
I am perturbed at the powers which it is proposed to entrust to Her Majesty's Government under this Bill. It is always a difficulty in a democracy to find the right balance in times of trouble between Executive efficiency and Parliamentary rights. The extent to which this House of Commons is willing to entrust the Executive with extraordinary powers must depend to a great extent on the degree of trust there is between hon. Members and the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench. I am worried partly because already the Executive have behaved in this admittedly difficult situation in an arbitrary way. Mention has been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), of the treatment of civil servants who happen to have had the misfortune of being posted to London— vindictive treatment at the hands of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bottomley: Rubbish.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The Secretary of State says that it is rubbish. I shall be extremely glad to hear that these very disturbing reports are untrue, when we have the final reply from the Treasury Bench. I hope there will be an adequate reply, because it seems that civil servants because they are here within the reach of the Secretary of State are to be treated in one way while civil servants

in Rhodesia are to be treated in another way.

Mr. Manuel: Who is acting for these people?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am acting for my constituents as is my duty in this House.

Mr. Manuel: My interjection was to ask the hon. Gentleman who he thinks the civil servants he mentioned are acting for, unless they sign a declaration that they are breaking away from the illegal Government?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As we have withdrawn our High Commissioner from Salisbury and as the Rhodesian High Commissioner has been asked to leave, I should have thought that his staff should be asked to leave with him. This seems to me to be perfectly reasonable, without their being asked to sign any statement which other public servants, who do not happen to be posted in London, will not be asked to sign.

`Mr. Bottomley: An explanation will be given. The hon. Gentleman has formed a harsh judgment on this action in relation to the home-based civil servants. He ought not to do that in trying to make an attack.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I do not think that the Secretary of State was here when the serious allegations were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. I am very glad that I have been able to draw those allegations to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I should be very glad, for the honour of this country, if our misgivings on this account could be set at rest.
The Government appear to be getting all kinds of arbitrary and quasi-dictatorial ideas into their heads. As the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) pointed out on Friday, there was never a word of this talk of treason and traitors at a time when we were at war with the American colonists in rebellion. When we were at war with them, there was never any talk whatever of treason and traitors because people happened to take a particular view. God forbid that we should ever be at war with Rhodesia. There was a certain gentleman—his name was


Horne; he was the leading spirit in the Constitutional Society—who sent Benjamin Franklin some money to succour the victims of the King's troops when we were at war. He was not prosecuted for treason. He was indicted for libel.
The Government have taken dictatorial action with regard to tobacco. They have acted under powers left over from a world war. We are not at war with Rhodesia, and God forbid that we ever should be.

Sir Richard Glyn: The Government's action on tobacco will affect only the coloured Rhodesians and not the whites and is in effect nothing more nor less than Oxfam in reverse.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out.
I come to the administrative decree by which Commonwealth preference has been withdrawn. Right hon. Gentlemen speak as though we were withdrawing something which is of unqualified benefit to the Rhodesians and of no particular importance to ourselves. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he replies to tell us whether the legal ground on which he stands is absolutely firm. I have studied the United Kingdom-Southern Rhodesian Agreement under the Ottawa Agreements of 1932. It has the historical interest that it is signed by a gentleman called Stanley Baldwin. Article 11 of the Agreement says this:
In the event of circumstances arising which, in the judgment of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, as the case may be, necessitate a variation in the terms of the agreement, the proposal to vary those terms shall form the subject of consultation between the two Governments.
I suppose the answer will be that the Smith regime is no longer a Government, that the Government of Southern Rhodesia are Her Majesty's Government, and that they have had due consultation with each other or within their own ranks. I do not know, but I am not entirely convinced by the argument that the withdrawal of preference is consequential on the U.D.I. After all, Commonwealth preference is still accorded to certain countries which are no longer members of the Commonwealth, but no doubt we shall hear more about it when we hear the reply.
More serious than this is the fact that the House is being asked to give carte blanche to the Government. It is true that the Orders under the Bill, if enacted, will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Am I wrong in thinking that what will happen will be that the Government will act under the very wide powers which will be conferred by this Measure, that they will do virtually what they like and we will be able to talk as much as we like, but that will have no effect whatever while the Government can command a majority in the House?
What do the Government expect to achieve by this Measure and by the administrative measures preceding it to which I have referred? Do they expect that the effect of all this and of the Orders which they have in mind will be that they will bring about a rebellion against the rebellion? Do they imagine, Rhodesians being what they are, that these measures will induce them to come to terms with Her Majesty's Government? Or do they perhaps not consider that they will make them more obdurate?
There will be an effect from the administrative measures and no doubt there will be an effect flowing from the Orders which may be brought forward under the Bill, but, as hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn), have pointed out, the effect is likely to be greatest upon the small, poor African people.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), speaking of the four million people in Rhodesia, seemed to suppose they were all Rhodesian Africans. They are not. It is very difficult to get exact figures in the free intercourse that there is of labour between Rhodesia and the surrounding territories, but a very large proportion of them are not Rhodesian Africans at all. The freedom which they enjoy to enter Rhodesia, where there is so much prosperity, and work there is a mainstay of the national economies of Rhodesia's northern neighbours, Zambia and Malawi.
I think that we should keep Zambia and Malawi, these Commonwealth partners of ours, very much in mind. I should like to pay tribute to the statesmanlike approach to this very difficult problem adopted by President Kaunda of Zambia


and also by Dr. Hastings Banda of Malawi. It was Dr. Hastings Banda who pointed out, quite correctly, that, if the ties between Malawi and Rhodesia were cut, Malawi would be lost.
What, in fact, do the Government hope to achieve? I rather think that certain words of Chatham, who expressed himself as
an avowed enemy of the American independency,
when moving an address in 1777, have some bearing on the likely effects of the sort of measures which the Government have in mind:
You may ravage. You cannot conquer.
They may do damage to Rhodesia and they may do considerable damage to the United Kingdom. As I said when replying to an interruption by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), I speak for my constituents. My constituents are entitled to be told about the effect on their interests and on the precarious British economy of these measures.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in and out. His name appears on the Bill. Are we to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what effect measures already taken administratively and to be taken in the future under the Bill may have upon the British balance of payments? I think it is well known that between £25 million and £30 million could be added to the deficiency in our balance of payments if we have to turn elsewhere for supplies of tobacco. We can turn to India. India is a member of the sterling area. She can supply us with some tobacco. We can also turn to Canada and the United States, but, although Canada is a Commonwealth partner, neither is in the sterling area.
We are entitled to hear a little about the effect on the British balance of payments. Still more, we should know whether the Government have it in mind to go further, as they have been urged by the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, and apply oil sanctions and a trade embargo. "Prohibitions" and "restrictions" were the words used by the Attorney-General. What further ones have the Government in mind? Is there to be a trade embargo?
The Government are being exhorted from below the Gangway to be in earnest about sanctions and are being asked, "If they do not really hit Rhodesia what is the use of them?" Let us hear from the Government what they have in mind and let our constituents be told what we stand to lose ourselves from a trade embargo. Last year we supplied £35 million, equal to one-third of Rhodesia's imports. It may be said that this is not a big amount, but in the precarious state of our national economy can we afford such an embargo?
I deplore the U.D.I. [Laughter.]Perhaps the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) thinks that it is a laughing matter. I think that it is very serious. Perhaps historians will recall that although it was a crime it was less a crime than a blunder. Here is a breach which we want to deal with. I want it mended and not widened. Nothing should be done to increase further the mistrust felt in Rhodesia for this country.
It is all very well for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to say that the 1961 Constitution was unacceptable and unsatisfactory. Rightly or wrongly, the electorate of Rhodesia understood that the 1961 Constitution was to be the last Constitution that they were to expect before independence was conferred upon them. It may not be easy to point to anything in black and white, but it is a fact that Sir Edgar Whitehead would never have obtained the consent of the Rhodesian electorate to the 1961 Constitution if it had not been put abroad in Rhodesia that it was a pre-independence constitution. If the House will not take this from Sir Edgar Whitehead, perhaps it will take it from Mr. Joshua Nkomo who, before the United Nations Committee on Colonialism in 1962, said that he feared that this Constitution, which he first of all accepted but from which he resiled subsequently, would bring independence to Rhodesia in 1963.
I think, therefore, that we should show the fullest understanding of the reasons for what has happened. We should understand the reluctance of these people who, but for an accident, might have been hon. Members now sitting here in the security of this Chamber. We


should understand their reluctance to be cajoled or coerced down a dangerous path by a British Government—let us face it—less concerned for their welfare than for wider international considerations. Government after Government have been perhaps more concerned with the appeasement of the United States, of the United Nations and of the Afro-Asian bloc.
Perhaps the reason for this Bill is that we are confronted by government by gesture. False comparisons have been made between Southern Rhodesia and South Africa. In 1923 the then British Government were of a mind that Southern Rhodesia should be incorporated in South Africa, but the electorate in Rhodesia, these Rhodesian Europeans, voted against incorporation in the Union of South Africa. Although it is true that many Rhodesian Europeans are of South African origin and a number of them are Afrikaners, it is also true that many of them came north because they wanted to live under a more liberal British system. [Laughter.]I cannot see that this is very funny. Is it surprising that people like ourselves, and perhaps South Africans, might want to move north and live under a British system of government and a British type of constitution? Is it so very funny? I should have thought that it was something to make us a little proud of our fellow-subjects in Rhodesia.
I greatly fear that if we act vindictively or rashly we shall not succeed in suppressing Rhodesian rebellion, but we shall succeed in finally incorporating Rhodesia within the South African system. This is why my plea is for conciliation, not coercion, for peace and not punishment.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am sure the whole House will regard the Bill as being an extremely regrettable one and that few hon. Members will vote for it with any sense of satisfaction. They will feel no satisfaction, I hope, because conferring these powers upon any Executive virtually untrammelled by the powers of this House is in itself repugnant.
A large number of my hon. Friends have spoken today from a point of view which I cannot in all conscience endorse. I accept their views as being sincerely

expressed and I hope that they will do me the same courtesy as I do them. I have only one exception to this comment, and that was the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery). This saddened me immensely, and I want to say a few words about it.
When I heard it I recalled the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), that those of us who are somewhat senile had the advantage of having seen all the worst films twice through. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North was saying that we had no real difference with these people and there was no difference of principle and was extolling, albeit in guarded terms, the merits of these men, I compared that with similar phrases spoken in the years 1933 to 1939. I then heard friends of mine say, "Why should we really oppose Hitler? It is true, of course, that there are some excesses, but, after all, they are only against the Jews and what does that matter? It is true that we do not go all the way with this man. It is true that he is doing things of which we do not wholly approve, but he is much to be preferred to the Communists whom he opposes ". I am afraid that there is a danger here today on my own side that there is a muting of consciences because we have an affinity with many of those who are resident in Rhodesia. Instead of the Jews we have the black Africans.
I want to make it very clear that this is not a small issue. It is an immense issue of principle and, let us be frank with ourselves, it is not merely a question of whether the previous Government in Rhodesia proceeded at a certain pace towards majority rule. Let us be quite clear that Mr. Smith obtained his position and maintained it only because a great number of his supporters profoundly believed that he would bring to an end any possibility of self-determination. Equally convincing, and in defence of Smith, is the fact that if his own views had been contrary to this opinion, he could never have sustained his position as Prime Minister any more than did his predecessors.
We should make it quite clear to ourselves that there is a great issue of principle for which we have a profound


responsibility. I was astonished that my right hon. Friend said that there was no issue of principle when three policemen, humble men, with no real responsibilities, no oath of allegiance to the Queen such as my right hon. Friend has, risked their position, no doubt with the chance of prosecution, because they believed that the conduct of the Rhodesian Government was inconsistent with their consciences.
I do not for one moment pretend that we could proceed to immediate self-government in the manner which is dictated and demanded by African extremists, but I think that any rational person looking at the situation will know that it was never the intention of the previous Administration to kill a proper measure of self-government. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said, we are responsible for this situation, because no Government in this country in the postwar has been firm enough with Rhodesia. We made a mistake in giving South Africa independence without making some provision for majority rule. We did the same thing with Rhodesia. The truth is that each successive Government has failed to be firm enough, putting off the evil day.
I do not wish to condemn any hon. Member who takes a view contrary to mine, but it is only sensible to say that if we tried to pursue the policy which is pursued by Mr. Smith, the inevitable result would be disaster for the white population of Rhodesia. Many hon. Members have said today that because the white Southern Rhodesians fought for us, because they have white skins, they are entitled to some special consideration. The coloured Rhodesians also fought for us, in larger numbers than did the whites. I cannot see that there is a basic merit in that argument.
I hope that the Government will do all they can to enforce the determination to bring to an end as quickly as possible the rebel regime in Southern Rhodesia. I say this in no vindictive spirit whatever. The Prime Minister was unfortunate in using the word "punitive" because all measures of this kind are somewhat punitive; if they were not punitive they would have no value in these circumstances. What we want to do is to apply those measures which are punitive but not vindictive. We should do those things which

are calculated to bring this rebel Government as quickly as possible to an end and to give liberal opinion in Rhodesia a chance to express itself.
May I say a word or two about liberal opinion? It is very difficult to take a moral stand when those around you want to discount a moral stand. Many young men who find themselves in prison today are the victims of this. They go on a street corner with a gang of young boys of their own age, and a few of these young men do something and want to do something which is entirely wrong. It is very difficult for the other young men, who have not the same ideas, to resist going with them or to oppose them and say, "What you are doing is wrong ".
So it has been with liberal opinion in Southern Rhodesia. Of course there are men who oppose Mr. Smith and men who regard the deliberate dragging back of the Africans as being wholly repugnant to their feelings. But there are strong pressures which say, "Follow us and for all time you will be the boss, for all time you will have the advantages, for all time you will enjoy this high standard of living and low taxation". Against those pressures, liberal opinion cannot easily express itself, and when it does express itself, it is often put into detention where it cannot express itself. I urge the Government to do all they can to encourage liberal opinion in Southern Rhodesia by taking the strongest possible stand, short of any vindictive action, against the rebel Rhodesians.
May I say a further word about black living with white or white living with black. It has been said this afternoon that the coloured States of Africa present to us a ghastly picture and that all kinds of dire consequences have resulted from the measures of independence which have already been granted. We have had references to the Congo, which I consider to be wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Let us leave the Congo aside for a moment and look at one or two of the other countries. It is true that the democratic pattern which we have established in this country has not been very faithfully reproduced on the continent of Africa, and we are to some extent to blame for this failure because it was never likely to succeed. Once there was one man, one vote, its demise was almost


certain, because an uninitiated and irresponsible Opposition can soon kill the concept of democratic Government.
But these happenings have to some extent clouded the other fact which is coming out of Africa—that it is by no means so difficult for white people to live in African territories with black Governments as almost every hon. Member at one time believed. In almost every territory in Africa we are hearing from white people who return to this country for leave that they are finding it easy to live with their black Governments. Indeed, the measure of co-operation between white and black in those territories which have achieved independence is remarkable.
On Friday the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) read out a truly remarkable message sent by the whites of Kenya to the whites of Southern Rhodesia. This fortifies what I have said, that while there are problems of black and white living together, it has not proved to be difficult for whites to live in territories where there are black Governments. I should have thought that this example would be an important indication to us in this House that, if it can be done in Kenya, it certainly can be done in Southern Rhodesia.
I hope the House will support the Bill without a Division. I thought the plea by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was mischievous. I know that he likes to be mischievous and that it is part of his life. But on this occasion he ought really to have repressed his natural instinct because this is a somewhat serious matter. I hope that the House will pass this Bill without any Division because I believe that tonight we have to give a moral lead.
We have little left of the majesty of the last century. Indeed, I doubt whether we could now launch an airborne attack against the army of Southern Rhodesia even if we were foolish enough to try. But we have a position in the world which is of some worth. The moral purpose and standing of this nation is still of value to the rest of the world. I do not want to see this tarnished or diminished by any apparent failure on our part to do those things that our consciences should determine that we do.
We must by our vote tonight make it clear, however distasteful it is to us to have to act against those whom we know well in Rhodesia—those who are our friends and, in my case, relatives—that we shall do it with determination because we conceive it to be our duty.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison (Edin-bugh, South): Like every other hon. Member, I regret deeply the steps taken by the Rhodesian Cabinet. They were wrong and unwise and showed lack of patience. But, the step having been taken, we have to consider how we can restore or improve the position. The use of force has rightly been ruled out by the Government. It has also been said that the problem is between Rhodesia and Britain and that other nations should keep out.I agree with that also.
The next alternative suggested is to apply sanctions or other economic pressures with a view to imposing our will on Rhodesia or causing Rhodesians to exert pressure on their Government or causing a new Government to be installed. I take it that that is the purpose of the Bill.
On Friday the Attorney-General said the Government
… propose to take a general power to make any Orders which appear necessary or expedient in consequence of the illegal declaration of independence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720. c. 514.]
In particular he named four classes of Order and some of them are very sweeping. I dislike this Bill on two grounds. First, I am reluctant to grant these excessive powers to the Government. The Government are trying to take over the work of Parliament and to usurp its functions without justification. Secondly, some of the powers are quite unenforceable and to agree to powers which cannot be enforced is a nonsense and makes a mockery of the work of Parliament.
The Attorney-General said that we would make laws for the peace, order and good Government of Rhodesia. How is this to be brought about? I want to know. In the last resort, the final sanction is force, but that has been ruled out, so what do we do? It may be argued that financial pressures and economic sanctions will produce the


desired result. I doubt it. The history of sanctions is not impressive. They failed in the Italian-Abyssinian war. They failed in Cuba. There is endless scope for evasion. Other economic measures are very slow moving and often ineffectual. They hurt innocent people and can bring indiscriminate distress.
In the case of Rhodesia I believe that hostile financial measures will simply cause moderate men and women there to side with Mr. Smith and his Government. The coloured population will certainly suffer and Zambian and Malawi nationals who work in Rhodesia will be adversely affected immediately. Bitterness will be created and nobody can say what the end of the road will be.
I find the economic proposals and powers under the Bill distasteful. I cannot find it in my heart to support these measures against another Commonwealth country and against our own people overseas, however wrongheaded their Government may have been. Sooner or later we shall have to deal with Mr. Smith or the Rhodesian Government. That must be recognised. We would be very wise to keep the lines of communication with them open. I believe that it would be statesmanlike and wise to get in touch with them immediately and to see what accommodation can be arrived at for the benefit of black and white and of Rhodesia and Britain.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I make this brief speech because I feel it is one I should make. I have no pretensions to be an expert on Rhodesia. However, I have taken every step I could to find out as much as I could about the subject, to hear all opinions and to read as thoroughly as I could the 1961 Constitution and the other papers leading up to it. Having done so, I feel that many of the speeches made tonight have been made on the wrong subjects.
We are not discussing the policy of the Government or of the previous Government, whether right or wrong. Nor are we discussing the rights and wrongs of U.D.I., whether it should have been taken or who was responsible. Nor are we discussing the assurances that the Government have given us today and on

Friday and at other times as to how this Bill will be applied.
Surely we are just discussing whether the Bill, with the measures outlined in it, is the right way to deal with the situation, and whether the indications of policy that the Government have given us are the right indications and ones we will agree with. This is a thing that should be considered very seriously indeed because Government policy could have an enormous effect on the future of the whole world.
That is why I particularly resented the speech made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). He pointed to three things which he said showed that our party was divided and that our policies were,wrong. In effect, he called in the ultimate for the sending of troops to sort out the problem and there were several "hear, hears" from the benches behind him from some hon. Members who have been doing their utmost to grind our national defences down to an all-time low and have thereby made it impossible for us in any case to make a contribution of that sort.
We then had a description of the police State. He said that Rhodesia was a police State and was becoming worse. We did not hear the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and his supporters objecting when similar measures were introduced in other countries with results far more devastating than in Rhodesia.
Hon. Members should seriously ask themselves what they would do in such circumstances, if they lived in a small country with the world against them and what might be called the previous colonial Government against them and with the prospect of an insurrection in their own country while overseas leaders were talking about invasion. Would it not be necessary to take such measures as we thought necessary to preserve law and order in our own country? This is how we must regard the possible concept of a police State.
What I have said refers to measures only since U.D.I., because it is clear that under Rhodesia's Constitution before U.D.I., at least, since 1961, it has been impossible to bring forward any measure involving racial discrimination. This was the fundamental basis of the 1961 Constitution and there was a Commission whose


approval for any such measure was required.
I am not happy about the Bill for several reasons. First, we are told that our support of the Bill is necessary so that Parliament can reassert its authority over Rhodesia. My understanding of the Bill is that it will effectively remove the ability of hon. Members to exercise timely control over a policy of sanctions or anything else. It might be argued that we have had an assurance that measures would have to be approved by the House. However, we can have all kinds of assurances about having a discussion of any measure within one or two days of a decision, but the psychological effect on Rhodesia and the world generally of any measure of sanctions, for instance, could be such that a revoking Order one or two days later would be largely ineffectual.
My second reason is that I do not know that the nature of the powers to be conferred on the Government is fully appreciated. I listened carefully when the Attorney-General explained the powers in Clause 2 and the details involved. However, I found myself largely in agreement with the suggestion that under that Clause it would be possible to suspend the 1961 Constitution and to do a wide range of things under the words
an Order in Council.… may make such provision…in relation to Southern Rhodesia, or persons or things in any way …
That demonstrates the full scope of the powers to make Orders.
My third reason is that if we pass the Bill, although we shall not be passing the Orders or conferring particular powers, we shall be accepting the principle of the policy of the imposition of sanctions. We must carefully consider the consequencies of such a policy and we must have serious doubts about it. If sanctions do not work —and it is more than likely that in the short or long term they will not work, because there are many countries, as is clear from the abstentions in the United" Nations and the two votes against the Resolution, which, openly or not, will not support such a policy—it will be impossible for the Government to achieve the results they want. If they do work and we get more co-operation than has ever been possible in any such previous operation, what is it we want to achieve and what would be achieved?
It is clear that if sanctions were successful, they would bring a great deal of misery and distress to every person in Rhodesia, to those loyal to the Crown and to those not and even to those who do not know what the problem is about. It might be argued that the Bill is necessary to remove the principle of a police State and dictatorship from Rhodesia. Can it be such a terrible dictatorship in a country which, above all in Africa, has two-thirds of its present population under 21 years of age? Can it be so bad, when half a million people come into it voluntarily to work and do not find conditions so terrible or so objectionable that they voluntarily go away again, as quite clearly they can do if they so desire?
I believe that the sanctions in themselves will bring misery and distress, but, what is more dangerous, if we are successful in bringing ruin and misery to Southern Rhodesia, although Ian Smith has said that he will not, the inevitable consequence will be some retaliation from a desperate Southern Rhodesia that may result in the cutting off of electricity from Zambia, which could bring industry in Zambia to a stop and could have the consequence of flooding her mines. It could, in effect, put the clock back 50 or 100 years in Zambia, and perhaps other places, too.
I feel that we should think of the consequences of our policy before we vote for it. The Government have a duty to consider what will happen and what the end result will be. If we approve a policy of sanctions in general or in principle, we have to accept that the ultimate consequence will be armed intervention of some sort by someone. If our policy of sanctions creates a situation of distress in which law and order break down, it is quite clear that troops will have to be involved at some stage of the proceedings. If the Government are thinking in terms of armed intervention at the end of the day, they must also think of the consequences of that.
We are calling up the Ever-Readies to go to Aden, and there is considerable feeling against the use of them in such circumstances. But, even if we decide on the use of troops, how are we going to land them? Shall we send them via Zambia or Malawi, or do we send in paratroopers to Southern Rhodesia itself?


It might be said that it is perhaps hypothetical and even silly to mention it, but I think it is vital, because we are today approving the basis of a policy, and it is our duty as individuals to consider what the consequences of that policy will be. I have looked at the Bill in every detail, and I cannot see it resulting in an acceptable or peaceful solution in any way. I think what other nations might do. I think of Southern Rhodesia itself. No matter how we look at it, there cannot be a peaceful and acceptable solution arising out of it. The one object of sanctions must be to create chaos and to create circum stances in which some new Government might arise or in which someone else can step in. Only if someone can show me that out of all the chaos and misery some acceptable solution will emerge will it be possible for me to support this policy. I cannot see it, and for that reason I certainly cannot support the Bill.
I apologise for intervening in the debate, because I feel that it has become the kind of debate to which only people with a wealth of experience and knowledge have been contributing. However, the situation is one that involves principles at which each Member of the House has to look. We must think of the consequences of the policy to which we are asked to give general approval. If we do that, we certainly cannot support the Bill.

8.49 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I am not one of those who have had the privilege of visiting Southern Rhodesia, but I, too, have studied the subject, and I feel very deeply about it. The last thing that I want to see is the situation in the territory getting out of hand, either for the whites or the blacks.
At the same time, I deplore the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who made no real contribution to the debate but simply inflamed the situation. There were two speeches from this side and one from the Labour Benches last Friday with which he disagreed. To sum up the debate on the basis of those three speeches is very unfair, and, in response to a question, he replied eventually that he would support British troops going into Rhodesia. Surely the one thing that the House has

to do today is to send a fairly united message out to the world.
It is unreasonable to expect every speech from both sides of the House to be identical. Nobody whom I have heard speaking today has said that U.D.I. was the right thing to do. Some hon. Members have made excuses as to why it happened, and have given the history leading up to it. Both parties have a responsibility in that direction, but those who have seen sanctions applied over the years have never seen them work, whether in Ethiopia or in Cuba. When the Americans applied sanctions against Cuba, they did not buy tobacco, but today we buy Havana tobacco in this country, and many Members enjoy it. I think that we have to turn these matters over very seriously in our minds.
It has been said that during the last war there was support for us, from both black and white, and that I endorse. I think that they have had a miserable deal over the years. Where there are second and third generation people growing up, it is the most frightful situation in which they now find themselves.
We all deplore U.D.I. It is very easy to say that in the comfort of an air-conditioned House of Commons, but what must it be like in Salisbury today? It is a desperate situation, and I ask hon. Members not to inflame it, to think seriously, and to think twice. Why do not those who recommend full sanctions recommend an oil embargo straight away? [HON. MEMBERS: "We do."] Not all do. The Prime Minister does not. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. It is either one thing or the other.
It is unthinkable that force would have to be used. We do not want one coloured or one white man killed. Our job as Members is to moderate the situation and to bring sense to it, if only for the next four or five weeks so that there is time to think, even by Mr. Smith, who might, by the immediate sanctions, have pressure put on him by his friends and colleagues who will say, "Smithy, you have made a mistake. You must think about this again." There are 4 million people involved, and that could happen. Do not drive him to desperation by bringing in extreme sanctions.
I should have thought that at the moment the loss of Commonwealth preference would be sufficient. They have lost all financial status within the Commonwealth. One can see what has happened with the Peking Chinese in Zanzibar. I wonder how many Opposition Members in the Ghana Parliament are still in prison? Not long ago I heard that 60 were locked up. I heard Mr. Macmillan say that it was a convenient way of running the Government if the Opposition were in gaol, but let us think about it. People of the third generation living in Salisbury today are entitled to look to their Northern neighbours to see what has happened to them.
The point was made earlier that from the adjacent countries about 170,000 people come to work in Rhodesia, and they have a high standard of living. We have to take into account how events in Salisbury will affect those territories.
I deplore the broadcasts on television by African Nationalists in this country, who have been inflaming the situation rather more than the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale did. They have been saying "We have an underground movement at work. We are ready for sabotage. We are ready for their blood." It is disgraceful that the Government allow the B.B.C. to put that sort of thing out over the air and on television. It ought not to be allowed.
The Government felt, or Lord Normanbrook felt, that it was right to prohibit Mr. Smith from making his final television broadcast. I think that it was a wrong decision. The Government may have felt that Mr. Smith was becoming a little too popular in Britain. He had made quite an impression over here during that week or two, and in canvassing a number of people in my constituency I found that well over 90 per cent. of those people in Macclesfield were on the side of Mr. Smith. Rightly or wrongly, we should recognise that, but that is no reason why we, as Members of Parliament, should be guided by what our constituents say. We are here to express our views as we see them. I mention that in passing. We should take note of that situation.
I am sorry that Brigadier Skeen, who left this country on Saturday, had to move out in such an ignominious way. He was

a man whose family, for seven generations, had served the Crown. He was serving his country up to the time when U.D.I. was declared, doing his duty. The Government could have been a little more human in giving him more reasonable time to get out. Then there are the six Rhodesian Sandhurst cadets who have been suspended—boys of 18 and 19. I hope that the Government will be more lenient with these youngsters who are here doing their best, and also with the young people who are employed at Rhodesia House.
I should like to hear from the Chancellor or some other Government spokesman what will be the effect on this country of these sanctions. It is all very well to say that tobacco will not be bought. The autumn crop has been bought and paid for, and there will not be another crop for 11 months. Even then I believe that tobacco is kept in Rhodesia for at least one year, and possibly two years, to mature. Why should not the Government put a ban on asbestos? I understand that about 50 per cent. of the output of Rhodesian asbestos is bought by this country. If we buy such large quantities, why should we not ban it? Is it because Britain needs it more than she needs tobacco? I want a clear explanation on this point.
If we are going to have sanctions we should impose them properly, and not bring in half-measures which will irritate the people and bring out the worst in them. This is a dangerous situation, and I am not convinced that what has been done by the Government will help at all. We shall bring the worst out of these 220,000 Rhodesians. They are not all loyal to Mr. Smith by any means, and I plead with the Government to do the minimum possible for a month or six weeks and then to see what we get.
We should allow the Governor to see what he can do, if he remains where he is, as seems likely. It may be that in a month, or five or six weeks, there will be a change of opinion and the Rhodesians will see that it is not going to work and that there is a possibility of avoiding bloodshed. To take these drastic measures over a period of time may be disastrous, and I hope that the Government will consider this matter sympathetically.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Lang-stone): I have little claim to be listened to with any respect on this subject. I have lived in southern Africa for only 27 years. I also declare another interest in the subject. One of my forebears obtained the Rudd concession on which Rhodes built Rhodesia. My father-in-law was a Speaker in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament, and lives in Southern Rhodesia; my wife was born there, and my brother-in-law was born there and is now serving in the British Army. I therefore regard with some dismay the implication in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the declaration of certain sentiments in this House was tantamount to incitement to rebellion.
I know that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has very little respect for the opinions of Lord North, but he might have some respect for the opinions of Edmund Burke who, 190 years ago, in this Chamber, said:
I am charged with being an American. If warm affection towards those over whom I claim any share of authority be a crime. I am guilty of this charge.
None of us has a constitutional mandate to speaK here on behalf of the people of Southern Rhodesia. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has earned it. For well over half a century 4 million Europeans, half of them British, have conducted their affairs under an uneasy condominium, effectively self-governing for 65 years in South Africa and 50 years in Rhodesia. They have exercised trusteeship over 10 million Africans—a trusteeship which, whatever its achievements, Europe has found increasingly unsatisfactory. The moral criteria have largely been determined, developed and defined in Europe, exported to Africa by the vocal organs of righteous political indignation. The practice and application of coexistence in multi-racial communities has been a local responsibility.
The divergence between refined precept and raw practice has created strains so severe that war broke out in 1899—we seem to have forgotten this—as it did in 1860 on another continent. A withdrawal from the Commonwealth took place in 1961 and a declaration of unilateral independence took place last week.

Throughout this period, the voice of the European in southern Africa has been largely silent in this House. For once, it will be heard.
It will be heard because I am convinced that we are in grave danger of making asses of ourselves. The House's sense of history, which is one of the things on which it prides itself, is surely something which has not been very self-evident this evening. I think it was Santayana who said:
Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.
I would add that those who learn the lessons of history are often condemned to repeat them with them.
Have those who have been negotiating with Mr. Smith forgotten, for example, the negotiations between Milner and Smuts as Attorney-General of the Transvaal? I would suggest that if they were to refresh their memories of the character and arguments of these negotiations, they would find a surprising parallel with those between Mr. Smith and the Prime Minister.
Have those who think that there have been developed new insights into and new solutions of the multi-racial community by any chance made themselves familiar with the correspondence between Smuts and John X. Merriman, the Prime Minister of the Cape? If they had, they would find very little developed in those arguments by either side which has not been deployed today and certainly very little which is new.
I came across the following phrase in the correspondence between Milner and Kruger:
The existence of a rational franchise would remove the main causes of British intervention in the Transvaal.
That leaves very few arguments.
Are we incapable of recognising the repeated, terrifying and costly demonstrations in the deep South in the United States, in Southern Africa from 1899 to 1902, in Algeria more recently and now, possibly, in Rhodesia? Are we incapable of recognising that substantial numbers— I emphasise the word "substantial"—of Europeans are, rightly or wrongly, simply not prepared to hand over political power to indigenous peoples who, for whatever reasons, lack resources, lack responsibility, lack skill and lack enterprise?
We should not concern ourselves, in my humble view, with the merits of this position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We should concern ourselves simply with the universality of this attitude as demonstrated on numberless occasions in the last century. Despite this bitter experience, let us admit that it is a failing of the Europeans, wherever they have involved themselves with indigenous peoples, that they are incapable of making this adjustment. Let us admit that this is a failure of the peoples of Europe.
Despite this, let us also realise that we have developed here in the United Kingdom—aided and abetted by all the major organs of opinion—an attitude of mind which suggests that, whatever contributions the Europeans in these parts of the world may make towards multi-racial ideals, they are not enough and they never will be enough. This is the basis of our attitude today.
We ditched the Federation—of that there is no doubt—because its multi-racialism fell short of our expectations. Now, our natural and inevitable dislike of all doctrines of racial superiority makes us unwilling to accept the necessity for interim solutions in interim situations, in which Europeans inevitably structure their social, political and economic systems to reflect real differences. Until these differences disappear, this necessity, as a real and practical political fact, must remain.
We have heard talk about insufficiency of means, particularly in relation to education. I wonder whether hon. Members seriously expected or can now expect a community which is not much larger in population than the town of Portsmouth or Plymouth or similar places in this country, and which in 1923 comprised only about 30,000 or 40,000 people, to create from nothing, without capital, the main educational substructure for 4 million people? Yet the burden of criticism today is that they did not do it.
I am not saying that there is any excuse for their not accepting the assistance which we in Europe have to offer now, but we must look at the whole record and consider what it is that this small community, without capital and without resources, has been expected to do, quite apart from educating their own children. Why should they not educate their own children by European standards? Why

should they degrade the education of their own children in order to achieve this equality? Which hon. Member will will give me an answer to that question?

Mr. Norman Buchan: I will give the hon. Gentleman an answer. First, may I put in in the form of a question to him? He says that in 40 years a community of 30,000 people—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member intervened to answer a question. He must answer it.

Mr. Buchan: What answer has the hon. Member got to this, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman intervenes to answer a question, he must answer it.

Mr. Lloyd: The very one who has an answer is high on the short list for the Chair of Higher Nonsense in Political Education yet to be set up in one of our universities.
Are we surprised that disillusioned people in Rhodesia have created a situation in which despair has followed automatically? There was idealism there in 1953. Let no hon. Member dispute that there was this idealism. Thousands of people whose dislike of the apartheid regime in South Africa was such that they felt impelled to emigrate went to Rhodesia. So let no hon. Member dispute that there was this idealism, and it is still there. But it is turning to dismay and to fear. It was once said that racial prejudice was false fears leading to real sorrows. Unfortunately, the real sorrows which many of us have seen in Africa lead ultimately to real fears.
The intimate experience which Rhodesians have had of the Congo and the other desperate affairs on their borders has bred a willingness to resort to measures which we all regard as discreditable. But have we any right to resent their attitude and expect them to bear the immediate personal consequences of what we preach? We talk as though the unilateral declaration of independence is Mr. Smith's sole responsibility. What a travesty of the truth. The responsibility rests firmly on the shoulders of those politicians, journalists, clerics, broadcasters and T.V. interviewers, the


whole sorry legion of joyless Jeremiahs, who have forced Europeans in Africa to wear a straitjacket of guilt out of all proportion to their crime. Now, is the United Nations to be the final arbiter of man's inhumanity to man?
We have forced Rhodesians into a lie. Should we now be surprised that they turn against us? Should we be surprised that, as Dame Margery Perham said in her very fine letter to The Times, they do not accept with a shout of acclaim the flaming torch of African revolution, which we have helped to keep alive in the basements and slums of London, before the television screens and on the front pages of our newspapers? After the repeal of the Stamp Act, an Act of the United States Congress described how the colonies fell "into their ancient state of unsuspecting confidence in the Motherland ". It was Burke who seized upon this in his address to the electors of Bristol and who suggested that this unsuspecting confidence was the true centre of gravity among mankind, about which all the parts were at rest. It is this unsuspecting confidence, he said, which
… removes all difficulties and reconciles all the contradictions which occur in the complexity of all ancient, puzzled, political establishments ".
He concluded:
Happy are the rulers which have the secret of preserving it.
I hope that the Prime Minister does not ask us to accept that he enjoys this secret, because I am sure that not all hon. Members would accept that he does. The Rhodesians, like the Americans in 1776, despairing of us, have trusted in themselves. If their alienation is not yet complete, it will not long outlast the imposition of penal sanctions.
The House is debating a U.D.I., but what is the real declaration we are debating tonight, on which U.D.I. merely sets its seal? It is, in my view, M.D.I.— a multilateral declaration of ineptitude. It has been ineptitude, firstly, on the part of Europeans in Africa, who failed on a sufficient scale to encourage the emergent Africans, particularly in Southern Africa. If they had given that encouragement this situation would never have occurred. It has been ineptitude, secondly, on the part of Europeans in Europe, with their absolute determination to apply to non-homogeneous societies not merely the ideals,

because this is right, but the concepts and institutions of homogeneous political societies to Europe. Indeed, the assumption by government in Europe that government by consent and free institutions are in all senses and under all conditions coterminus with and wholly dependent on universal suffrage has been a major cause of disaster. A minor ineptitude on the part of Europeans in Europe—I include not only this House but Europe as a whole—has been our failure to focus attention on this great area of Africa and the basic economic nature of the problem of advancing all these people.
The final ineptitude is of the Africans, particularly the African nationalists in Southern Rhodesia, whose impatience and conceit was encouraged by us to believe that they live in the modern equivalent of hell. They spurn whatever political advance is made available to them, act against civil order and thus augment the hell against which they have been encouraged to protest.
Treason is the revolt of reasonable people in Rhodesia against a multilateral declaration of ineptitude. There may be technical treason inherent in U.D.I., but we shall make the gravest misjudgment since 1776 if we assume that there is treason in the hearts of the Rhodesian people. At the height of the last war Field Marshal Smuts wrote a most poignant letter to his wife. It included the following phrase:
Perhaps it is the fate of our little race to be sacrificed on the altar of the world's ideals. Perhaps we are destined to be the martyr race.
I am sure that if there is any sentiment in the hearts of the Rhodesian people tonight, that phrase is close to what it might be. It is not treason but the sentiment which they feel. It there not a place for a legitimate de factoauthority in Rhodesia? Is it really possible for this House, this country—indeed, for Europe—to upset this? I remind the House that over the minarets in the heart of the Kremlin today there stands the Cross. It is not the Cross which is illuminated but the Red Star of Russia.
Sanctions, to be effective, require the co-operation of both Portugal and South Africa, and the chances that we could make these sanctions effective across the Limpopo are, in my opinion, absolutely nil. We have had a great deal of discussion this afternoon about oil, but I


have not heard one hon. Member mention that South Africa has the largest oil-from-coal plant in the world, and is probably capable of supplying Rhodesian requirements from its own indigenous resources. If South Africa should choose to do this, what is our policy to be? Are we to destroy that plant? If so, how, and what will the consequences be of such an action if we take it?
If we press these sanctions to their logical conclusion, the result will be war —of this there is no doubt whatever. Are we prepared to accept these consequences? Have we thought this thing through? Have we asked ourselves what are the necessary conditions which, in our minds, will topple Mr. Smith's Government? How are we to create those conditions, and what will be the consequences throughout Southern Africa? I suggest that we have not thought these things through. We are not willing to face the logical consequences of our actions and, until we are, I cannot possibly support the Bill.
I believe that there are only two tests to be applied. The first is: do we or do we not want a major war in Southern Africa? If we do not want a major war in Southern Africa, we must be very careful how we handle this situation. The second is: do we want to restore British prestige in Southern Africa? I ask, because this is fundamental. I suggest that if we do want to restore British prestige there, the right approach to this problem, which is as formidable in its complexity as any that have come before the House of Commons, is one of humility in the face of what is a most enormous problem, with enormous complications.
We cannot stop the wind of change. It would be a fool who suggested that we could. The wind of change, a phrase that has been much maligned and criticised, nevertheless expressed a great truth in relation to Africa. The twentieth century is the century of change, not least in the balance and relationships between peoples, but I would suggest that the responsibility which this House faces this evening is not one of stopping the wind of change in Africa but, quite simply, whether we are to turn the wind of change into a monsoon of misery.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas: We have had a very full, a very thoughtful and very serious debate on the Second Reading of this enabling Bill. One thing that has emerged quite clearly from the debate is that no one who has spoken welcomes this Bill. Those who have offered support to it have done so sadly. It is right to say that they do so for one reason and one reason only, which is that they think that it is necessary. Hon. and right hon. Members have delivered speeches with tremendous sincerity. No one has spoken other than wholly sincerely. In particular, it will be generally agreed, I think, that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) spoke from the bottom of his heart. He has associations with Southern Rhodesia —family and historical associations— which demonstrate the real problem we have to face when we are thinking about this matter.
It is true that we have ties of kinship with people in Rhodesia which cannot be severed by a Bill like this. They will remain, but I suggest that this Bill is not brought about because of anything which the last Southern Rhodesian Government did in the conduct of its affairs in Rhodesia. It is not brought about because of what happened in Southern Rhodesia in the many years when it had self-government. This is brought about because the last Government in Southern Rhodesia, or rather, Mr. Smith's Government, acted illegally.
I do not think that this has been in issue at all during this debate. There is no doubt at all, no issue in law, that they acted illegally last Friday when they declared independence. This was a grave step. It was a tragic step, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said, it was on their part folly. The repercussions, as he said, will be felt not only in Rhodesia, not only in Africa and Britain, but throughout the world, because what was done by this declaration of independence involved possibly the most important, certainly the most sensitive, problem in world relations —the problem of colour and the irritant, the major irritant, which goes with that problem, the question of white supremacy.
I think I can say from this debate that, with one or two exceptions, it is generally


agreed that it would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government and Parliament to accept this rebellious challenge lightly. Southern Rhodesia is still part of Her Majesty's Dominions. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Parliament in the United Kingdom have the burden of carrying the Crown's responsibility and jurisdiction, which in law undoubtedly remain.
Therefore, we recognise that Her Majesty's Government need powers from Parliament to act. Clearly they must have the powers and they must be able to act quickly. It is also clear that when they come to Parliament and ask for an Enabling Bill they ask for powers which must be widely drawn.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said at the beginning, we do not oppose the principle behind this enabling Bill. We have reservations and they have been expressed very strongly. We have reservations as to certain of its contents. There has been detailed criticism in the course of the debate, but, despite what has been said strongly and very forcibly against this Bill by certain hon. and right hon. Members, nevertheless it is the general wish of this House that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, provided that we can be satisfied on one or two important matters that were raised.
We have had certain assurances from the Attorney-General in his opening speech and we are grateful for what he said. We wish for some more assurances from the Solicitor-General when he winds up the debate. May I remind him of what was said in particular by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington and my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery). We should like—I am sure this is the wish of a large number of hon. and right hon. Members—to have assurances from him that these emergency powers will not be used in an attempt to rewrite the 1961 Constitution so as to impose a constitutional settlement on the people of Rhodesia.
The Attorney-General said that there was no intention to suspend the Constitution. He prayed in aid words contained in Clause 2(2,a), that an Order in Council
may make such provision—

(a)for suspending, amending, revoking or adding to any of the provisions of the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia 1961.
The Attorney-General said that the words "any of the provisions" meant that it could only be part of the provisions and therefore did not mean an amendment to or an alteration of the Constitution as a whole.
I confess that I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) about this. The power is there in the Bill to revoke all the provisions. If the Attorney-General is right and they are restricted by the word "any", the power is nevertheless there to revoke so many of the provisions of the Constitution that it would become wholly emasculated.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington expressed his concern about the word "revoking" in the Clause. We believe that it is unnecessary, but we do not press this matter. We merely ask the Solicitor-General to give us an assurance that any revocations that may be made in this Constitution will be limited purely to consequential amendments. I can understand that if there is an amendment there may have to be consequential amendments in some form. I ask the Solicitor-General to say that they will be limited purely to those and that any amendment or addition to the Constitution will be interim only and is not intended to be permanent.
Concern has been expressed during the debate about the provision of Clause 3(3,b), which reads:
The expiration of section 2 of this Act shall not affect—
(b)the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia 1961 as in force immediately before the expiration of that section.
What does this mean? Am I not right in saying that this means that, if an amendment is made of the Constitution in some way through an Order in Council, at the expiration of the 12 months from the date of the Bill, if it is not renewed, the Constitution remains as amended? This may well mean that there could be quite an alteration in the Constitution which, when the emergency has come to an end, would nevertheless have the effect that the Constitution has been amended in a considerable way.
Therefore, we are entitled to know what the Government's intention is on this. If the Constitution has been amended, is it intended that that amendment shall be permanent, or is it intended that at the end of the period of emergency the main features of the Constitution shall remain, because I think that that is the general wish of the House? At the end of the emergency all the major features of the 1961 Constitution should still be effective.
The Attorney-General will agree with me that this is important, because the purpose of this Enabling Bill surely is to bring Rhodesia back to the lawful constitutional development. The purpose of it is not to impose a solution on Rhodesia. Therefore, any alteration of the Constitution which is intended to be permanent should be conducted, once there is a lawful Rhodesian Government again, by negotiation because only then will there be any hope of a final solution.
The first Clause of the Bill makes a declaration about the existing law. One thing which we should think about is the question of treasonable activities, which has been mentioned by many hon. and right hon. Members in the debate. Questions have been posed about the British Nationality Act, 1948. It is clear that there is a complicated problem here. If a person is a Rhodesian subject and is therefore a British subject under the 1948 Act but is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, as so many Rhodesians are by reason of birth and other reasons, then the British subject who is a Rhodesian would not be acting in a treasonable way unless he was acting against Rhodesian law, whereas the British subject—like possibly Mr. Smith who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies because he was born before 1923 and because of his parentage— would be liable, even if he had not infringed Rhodesian law, if he infringed British law.
These are complicated matters. They are far from clear, and I was interested when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) asked whether the Solicitor-General, in his reply, would try to clarify the subject. I do not think that it could possibly be clarified simply. I do not think that it would assist if an attempt were made, because the whole

thing would be so confused that no one would be able to dare act in any way. I think that the Governor was right, as the legal Government in Rhodesia, to take a simple course. He enjoined all public servants in Rhodesia to continue normal working whilst refraining from all acts calculated to further the objects of the illegal authorities.
This is an eminently sensible approach, but I am sure that the House, which has concerned itself very much with the position of the police, the military and the Civil Service in Rhodesia, was very disturbed by the revelations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) in his speech today. I confess that I had no idea that what he told the House had taken place, and I should like to refer to it.
My hon. Friend said that those members of the former Rhodesian High Commissioner's staff in London who remained here had been told by Her Majesty's Government that they must make a declaration of dissociation from the purported declaration of independence. My hon. Friend read out to the House what they were required to declare. What concerns me is, first of all, that at the end of the document is written:
If you decline to make a declaration in the above terms you will be regarded as having chosen to adhere to Mr. Smith's illegal regime.
This is a new approach in British law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] It means that these people are told that silence and neutrality shall be deemed to be an admission of guilt and possibly treason. I think that it would be agreed by the Attorney-General that this is a new and wrong departure from the ordinary law of this country. I hope that he will dissociate himself from it. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), who is a member of my circuit and I think an extremely intelligent man, should have seen fit in his speech to try to support this action. It is wrong, and I am sure that the Government know that it is wrong if it means that those people who are in Britain, civil servants and officials of the old Rhodesian Government and possibly of the present Rhodesian Government under the Governor, are being treated in a different way from those who are in Rhodesia and who have just been


told by the Governor to do the best they can.
I am told that there is one coloured gentleman among these people. What a dreadful position he is placed in; whichever way be chooses, he is placing himself in a difficult position. Is he to be placed in this position? Is he to be asked to choose here and now by a declaration? And if not, will he be treated differently from the white people who are civil servants of Rhodesia? In any way, it is wholly unsatisfactory. I did not know about this until the debate, but I am told that my right hon. and learned friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) before the debate started communicated with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and I hope that we shall have an adequate reply on a subject which has concerned the House very much in the debate.
I have one or two more matters to raise. I appreciate that it is late and that the House wishes to hear the Solicitor-General's reply. But I should like to mention one or two other points on which we want some assurance. Clause 2(5) reads:
The expiration of an Order in pursuance of this subsection shall not affect the operation of the Order as respects things previously done or omitted to be done or the power to make a new Order; and in calculating the period aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
It is a departure from the normal procedure to have 28 days before which Parliament needs to pass these Orders. Normally it is seven days. But it is a point which one does not press because it is appreciated that there may be difficulties. We do, however, require an answer.
My right hon. and learned Friend asked about the effect of an Order which has been laid but at the end of 28 days has not been passed, and then another similar or identical Order is laid immediately thereafter. Is it possible to continue with these Orders, despite the fact that they are not passed by Parliament? From a practical point of view I agree that it could not be done, because Parliament would not tolerate it, but from the point of view of the drafting of the Bill

it could be done, and it is a point to which the Solicitor-General should refer.
We are entitled to have an assurance from the Government that if an Order in Council is affected by the prorogration or the adjournment of Parliament or in some other way as envisaged in this subsection, then Parliament will be recalled and there will not be this very long delay, as there could be, particularly in an important Order. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, in small matters this clearly would not be necessary, but there may well be Orders which contain extremely contentious matters, as we have heard today, and it is only right that we should be given the assurance that in these circumstances Parliament would be recalled.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said that it was important that we should send out from the debate a united message to the world. It is clear that in the debate there has not been unanimity. There has been agreement on certain matters. There is agreement that the act of U.D.I. was an act of grave concern to us, an act which is illegal and an act of folly. I suggest that we should appreciate that the Government are faced with a serious situation and that they deserve the powers for which they have asked. During the debates which will take place on the various Orders which will follow from the Bill, there will be opportunity for us to go in depth into the Orders. But tonight the Government ask for powers to act, and I commend to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to the whole House that it would be in the interests not only of Britain but also of all the people of Rhodesia if we were to act tonight in a united fashion.

9.41 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): We have reached nearly the end of a sombre but memorable debate. As the right hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Peter Thomas) said, every Member who has taken part in the debate has addressed the House with great sincerity, and in nearly every case, I would say, with a high sense of the responsibility which rests upon us all. I particularly wish to acknowledge the tone and temper of the speech delivered by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and


Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) in opening the debate and the speech of the right hon. Member for Conway.
Before I come to the rather more substantial point about the Constitution and other matters which were raised, there is one particular matter with which I want to deal at once, because it has aroused the anxiety of hon. Members in different parts of the House. This concerns the declaration which was said to have been required from members of the staff at Rhodesia House. I think that I can set at rest the minds of right hon. and hon. Members on this matter.
It is necessary to distinguish between the official position of the staff at Rhodesia House and the treatment which is to be accorded to them as individuals. On the declaration of independence, the inter-Governmental relations previously conducted through the respective High Commissions in Salisbury and London of course came to an end. There is no legal Government for Rhodesia House to represent here, just as there is no legal regime in Salisbury with which our High Commission can have dealings.
We are, therefore, requiring the withdrawal of the former High Commission staff in London, the time of this withdrawal being comparable with that of the withdrawal of our staff from Salisbury. As individuals, the High Commission staff have simply been offered an opportunity to dissociate themselves from the illegal regime. They have been told that if they do so they will not be required to leave, that they will be regarded and treated by the British Government as loyal public servants of the Crown, that the objective will be to restore them to service under a legal regime in Rhodesia and that, in the meantime, financial assistance will be afforded to them and the possibilities of giving them alternative employment in this country will be immediately examined.
The document which has been mentioned was given to the former Deputy High Commissioner at his own request. It was given as a guide to the kind of declaration of loyalty that was needed and to the implications of the choice facing individuals. I want to make it clear that there has never been any question of requiring all members of the staff at

Rhodesia House to make a declaration in one sense or the other or indeed to sign a declaration in any form unless they wished to do so.
I am told that there is no reason to think that any misunderstanding of the position remains in the minds of any member of the staff. The staff have also been told that, irrespective of any declaration that may be made, we will be prepared to consider sympathetically any individual compassionate case that may be put to us regarding the date of departure. I hope that this will set at rest the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Wall: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Solicitor-General intends to give way.

Mr. Wall: I ask the Solicitor-General to explain the last sentence of the declaration. Why have these men been told that if they do not sign this declaration and then go home they will be regarded as rebels?

The Solicitor-General: They have not been so told and the position has been made perfectly clear.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Does the Solicitor-General deny that the actual document passed to these civil servants ended
If you decline to make a declaration in the above terms you will be regarded as having chosen to adhere to Mr. Smith's illegal regime."?

The Solicitor-General: All that happened was that one civil servant asked another civil servant for an expression of opinion. That is all this document represents. The document was in no way presented on behalf of the Government to any member of the staff in Rhodesia House. Nobody has been asked to sign such a document. Nor has it been suggested that anyone should do so.

Mr. Hastings: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Solicitor-General is obviously not giving way.

Mr. Edward Heath (Bexley): This is a very serious matter. I realise that the Solicitor-General is doing his best to help


the House, but the copy we have of this document is headed "From the Commonwealth Relations Office, Downing Street", with the words "Declaration Required". It contains the sentence which has twice been read out to the House. Would it not be better for the Solicitor-General, in the presence of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, to say quite frankly that he regrets that the document was sent out and that, in view of this statement, it is withdrawn?

The Solicitor-General: I thought I had already made it clear to the House that this document was not sent out. It in no way represents the policy of the Government and there is nothing for us to withdraw. The position as regards the staff at Rhodesia House is, as I have said, that nobody has been required to sign a declaration and I think that it will appear to the House, from what I have said, that every possible indulgence has been afforded to all members of the staff.

Mr. Heath: We accept that the Government wish to give every consideration to the members of the staff and if the Solicitor-General now says that this document in no way represents the policy of the Government then we are prepared to accept it.

The Solicitor-General: I thought I had said so, but certainly I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. This does not and never has represented the policy of the Government.
I come now to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington who asked for an assurance that we would not rewrite the whole of the 1961 Constitution under the powers conferred by this Bill. A similar assurance was asked for by the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery). I can give that assurance at once. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) pointed out that it might be possible, by using the powers under Clause 2(2), gradually to erode the Constitution. But if we wanted to suspend the Constitution as a whole, these words would be entirely inapt.
If we wanted to do that, we would take powers to do so in the clearest terms, but it is not our purpose to destroy the 1961 Constitution. This is also the

answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). We want to preserve the 1961 Constitution, because it is under that Constitution that both the Governor and the judges derive their powers. Those powers would disappear if we were to suspend or revoke the 1961 Constitution. Therefore, we do not intend that the Constitution as a whole should be destroyed, or that it should be altered in any very considerable respect. But, of course, when we are taking powers, we have to take powers to deal with particular provisions in the Constitution should that become necessary.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Can the Solicitor-General say why in those circumstances it is necessary to have the word "revoking" in subsection (2,a)? Surely power to suspend or amend would be quite sufficient.

The Solicitor-General: It is necessary to cover every possible eventuality—suspend, amend, or revoke. It may be necessary—we cannot tell yet—to get rid of some particular provision in the Constitution, but I give the House the assurance that it is not our purpose to destroy the Constitution either at one blow, or by a series of erosions.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on—and this engaged the attention of various hon. Members—to deal with the question of treason. Last night, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I were asked to advise on whether certain acts would constitute treason and we advised—and this advice was published in the Press this morning—that not only would any assault on the Governor constitute treason, but it would also constitute treason if there were an attempt to usurp the lawful authority of the Governor.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, perfectly correctly, that there was a difference between the law of treason in this country and the law of treason in Rhodesia, and that the Treason Act. 1351. and the Act of 1848 did not apply in Rhodesia. That is perfectly true. The law in Rhodesia is based on Roman-Dutch law, but although the terms are different, the effect is very much the same and it remains true in Rhodesia, as it is here, that anyone who usurps the authority of the Governor, or anyone who


incites to rebellion, or anyone who gives aid and comfort to the rebel regime, is guilty of treason.
I do not ask the House to accept merely my opinion or that of my right hon. and learned Friend. I ask the House to recall what was said by Sir Robert Treadgold, a very considerable jurist, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree. He resigned his position as Federal Chief Justice a few years ago because of the oppressive legislation which was being passed by the Federal Legislature and which is now mirrored in the legislation of Rhodesia. On 1st July, last year, Sir Robert Tread-gold said that a declaration, that is, a unilateral declaration of independence, would be treason, particularly if it were followed by action to give it effect. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Member for Conway pointed out, that the position is somewhat different as between citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and Rhodesian citizens. There are both in Southern Rhodesia.
I believe that Mr. Smith and certain other members of his Cabinet are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whereas there are other persons there who are Rhodesian citizens. They are all of them subject to Rhodesian law while they are in Rhodesia. The difference is that those of them who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies are also subject to the English law of treason and, if they commit an act of treason, they are liable to be tried in this country. That, I agree, is perhaps an anomaly which is created by Section 3 of the British Nationality Act, 1948. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend informed the hon. Gentleman for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the question of an amendment in the 1948 Act is a matter which we have under active consideration.
Reference to treason was also made by the hon. Gentleman for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). He referred to the statement that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend on Friday last that, unlike Rhodesia, we were not going to impose any censorship in this country. But it is not just a matter of censorship. It is well

established that incitement to treason is in itself treason. If anyone in this country were to incite the rebels to persist in their rebellion or give them aid and comfort in any way, they might be exposed to prosecution. But that is not a matter of censorship. That is a matter of the law of the land.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say what the position will be of African Nationalists in this country who incite bloodshed over radio and television?

The Solicitor-General: I am dealing now with those who incite to rebellion. I say that that is an act of treason. It may be that other offences are committed by other persons, but the question that was put to me was about censorship, and I answered by saying that there is not and will be no censorship in this country. But, if persons break the law, they must be prepared to take the consequences.

Mr. Fell: Really, that does not answer the question satisfactorily. The Attorney-General, by his correction of himself on Friday, imposed a censorship on the Press and people of this country.

The Solicitor-General: He imposed no censorship. I do not want to take up the time of the House on the point, but he expressly excluded any question of censorship. I am saying that no question of censorship arises if people in this country choose to break the law by giving aid and comfort in any way to a rebel government.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose—

The Solicitor-General: I shall try to cover all the points which were raised in the debate, if I might ask for the indulgence of the House.
The next point that was raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by the right hon. and learned Member for Conway was in relation the expiration of the Order, in subsection (5) of Clause 2. He wanted an assurance that if during a Parliamentary Recess some important new order was passed, Parliament would be recalled. I cannot give him an assurance precisely in those terms. He will agree with me that we might have orders of differing degrees of importance, and no one would suggest that the House should be recalled because of some rather


trivial order. But if there was an Order which represented an important new departure, which may be very important indeed, then I suppose that as a matter of course there would be consultations between the usual channels, and I would think, though of course I cannot give an undertaking, that the recall of Parliament might very well follow.

Lord Balniel: Surely it is not unreasonable that the Solicitor-General should give the undertaking that if the Opposition request the recall of Parliament because in their view an Order in Council is controversial and important Parliament will be recalled? Surely he can give the undertaking that the Government will meet the Opposition's request.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot give an undertaking, and no Government can, that Parliament will be recalled whenever the Opposition wish to recall it. What I have said is that I would have thought that this was a matter which would almost certainly be considered through the usual channels, and that if a fresh Order made under this Bill represented some considerable new departure in policy Parliament would probably, indeed almost certainly, be recalled.
I come next to the speech of the right hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pick-thorn). He made a somewhat nostalgic speech and reminded my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne and myself of the days, 25 years ago, when we passed the Regulations under the Emergency Powers Act, in 1939. He wanted to know whether it was really necessary to have a period of 28 days. Again I say that there may. be some Orders of great importance, and some of little importance, and it may be that if there is a fairly trivial Order the House will be content to allow it to pass for a certain number of days, up to 28 days, but the House has already received an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it would be the wish of the Government, as I am sure it would be the wish of the Opposition and of hon. Members on both sides of the House, if we were dealing with an Order of any consequence, to bring it before the House in the shortest possible time. That is certainly the intention of the Government.
The other point that was raised as regards this aspect of the Bill was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham). He said that there might be an Order which expired after 28 days and then a fresh Order in the same terms would be made a day later although the original Order had not been confirmed by the House. Theoretically that could happen. That could happen under any of the emergency powers legislation that we have ever had in this House, but in fact we know that it cannot happen because the House of Commons would not tolerate it. Therefore, I suggest that that is a perfectly imaginary difficulty. Moreover, if the Order were really of any consequence, the House would certainly insist on debating it before the expiration of the 28 days.
Now I come to the speech of the right hon. Member for Preston, North. He made the same point, and I say again to him that there has never been any question of this Government or, I would say, of the last Government either, imposing a constitution on Rhodesia. It has been the endeavour, both of the last Government, and of this one, to find some measure of agreement. That is to say, I come back to the fifth of the five principles. It is the aim of this Government, and, I think, of the whole House, finally to arrive at a constitution which will be reasonably acceptable to all races in Rhodesia, but there is no question simply of using these powers to impose a constitution from Whitehall.
The right hon. Gentleman—and also the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison)—went on to seek an assurance that it was not the intention of the Government to use these powers for what he called the escalation of sanctions. All I can say is that at the present time we think the measures now contemplated, and of which the House is well aware, will serve their purpose, but of course I cannot give an assurance that we will never use these powers for any further purposes, and no Government introducing a Measure of this kind could give an assurance of that sort.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) made a reference to the part played by the churches in Rhodesia, and I should like to join in the tribute


that he paid to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) asked about broadcasting. I would refer him to the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. I understand that the B.B.C. is making every possible effort to see that the people of Rhodesia receive over the air the information which is denied to them by their own Government.
I turn now to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). His was a very welcome intervention in the debate. He referred in particular to the position of the Rhodesian judges, and I found myself entirely in agreement with what he said about their attitude. I had the opportunity of visiting Rhodesia in September last year. At that time the prospect of a unilateral declaration of independence was being canvassed; indeed, even then it was almost the only topic of conversation in Salisbury. I was then told that there was no question as to the attitude of the judges; they would all refuse to acknowledge an unlawful Constitution but would carry out their duties so long as they were able to do so. I was assured that the same attitude was shared by the great majority of the Rhodesian Bar. Therefore, as a member of the legal profession, I—and I am sure that the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite will join with me—wish to pay my tribute to the Rhodesian Bench and Bar in these very difficult circumstances.
The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) was the first Member in the debate to refer to the embargo on tobacco imports. He asked why it was necessary to take action in advance of the Bill. My answer is simply that the Government have taken certain measures concerning tobacco, sugar, arms and exchange control under powers which already existed—that is to say, powers for which we do not need to seek Parliamentary authority. We took this action because, first, our objective was to act firmly against the illegal seizure of power by Mr. Smith and his colleagues and, secondly, because—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said—it was necessary to act swiftly. We stand by the decision to take those actions. We think it was right to do so in advance of the Bill.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked whether we would introduce only those sanctions which could be made immediately effective. Of course we cannot do that, but we do not propose to introduce any sanctions for their own sake. We think that some sanctions will be immediately effective but others may take a little longer to make their effects felt. But under these emergency powers we do not intend to introduce any measures which we do not contemplate being effective in the end.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The Solicitor-General has not answered the point that I put. What I said was that the Government ought only to introduce Orders which they were determined to see enforced. The point that I was putting was not that they should necessarily only be effective, but that they should also be capable of being enforced.

The Solicitor-General: Yes. We intend all the measures that we introduce eventually to be capable of enforcement. But there must be some measures—for example, those relating to the constitutional position of the Governor—that we cannot enforce at present but which we intend to be enforceable at the end of the day.
I will come back in closing to the speech of the right hon. Member for Preston, North. He astonished me, because he said there was no issue of principle involved in the Bill. I should have thought that there was a tremendous principle here. After all, we are dealing with rebellion. Various references have been made to earlier rebellions, some of which succeeded and some of which deserved to succeed. Most of us would agree that the rebellion of the American colonists deserved to succeed. There are few hon. Members, even on the benches opposite, who would now rush to the defence of George III and Lord Bute.
There were rebellions of a different kind in the nineteenth century. There was the Risorgimento in Italy which led to the throwing off of Austrian rule. There was an unsuccessful rebellion, but one which deserved to succeed, in the streets of Budapest in 1956. But they all had one distinguishing feature. That they were all rebellions against tyranny and injustice. This is a rebellion


to maintain tyranny and injustice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is a rebellion engineered by the spokesmen of a small racial minority who are prepared to go to any lengths and to break any law in order to maintain their privileged political and economic position.
We have heard about the measures which have been imposed in the last few days. Oppression did not begin with the unilateral declaration of independence. We have had over a very long period the African leaders imprisoned without trial. I arrived in Southern Rhodesia last summer on the day that they were suppressing the Daily News. I listened to the debate in their Parliament and it was apparent to me—as it was to anyone else who heard the debate—that the newspaper was being suppressed simply because it expressed views unpalatable to the Government and because it was a forum for African opinion.
We now see the stage reached of complete and absolute suppression. The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey said, rightly, that we are responsible for the peace, order and good government of Southern Rhodesia. We have a responsibility for all people in Rhodesia, but, above all, I suggest, for that African majority who at present are denied all human rights and all means of political expression. It is to discharge that responsibility that we introduce this Bill today.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. GOURLAY and Mr. FITCH were appointed Tellers for the Ayes and Mr. EDWARD M. TAYLOR was appointed Teller for the Noes; but no Member being willing to act as second Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill immediately considered in Committee [pursuant to Order].

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

10.15 p.m.

The Chairman: Before I put the Question on Clause 1, I have to inform the Committee that two manuscript Amendments have been handed in, which I propose to select. The first is in Clause 2, page 2, line 1. leave out subsection (3).
The second is in Clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out word "twenty-eight" and insert "seven".
Copies of these Amendments may be obtained at the Vote Office.

Clause 1.—(STATUS OF SOUTHERN RHODESIA.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Charles Taylor: I did not have the opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill and, although I shall not detain the Committee unduly, I wish to say something about Clause 1. In the Army, young officers are told, when they write a precis or a paper about any situation, that they must start by saying "The object of the exercise is …" and then give the object of the exercise.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will withdraw quietly and not carry on loud conversations.

Sir C. Taylor: I have read and reread Clause 1, and I fail to see what the object of the exercise is. I do not know whether it is the Government's object under the Bill to create anarchy in Rhodesia. Do they want only to bring Mr. Smith to his knees? Do they want to deal with a successor? I do not know who the successor might be with whom they would want to deal.
We should be told a little more in the Bill about what the object of the exercise is. Is it the Government's intention to ask the help of the United Nations? Is it their intention not to deal with Mr. Smith at all in the future, on any conditions? Is it their intention to deal with Mr. Smith's deputy? What is the intention? No one knows under the Bill at all.

Is it the intention to create an anarchy in Rhodesia?

The Chairman: Order. This does not arise on the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(POWERS WITH RESPECT TO SOUTHERN RHODESIA.)

Sir K. Pickthornm: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out subsection (3).
The Attorney-General told us this afternoon that retrospection is bad legislation. There can be no doubt that, so far as it is regrettable, it is more regrettable when it is delegated legislation than when it is direct and when it directly conveys the authority of Parliament.
I can understand that there may be circumstances at the moment which would make it extremely inconvenient to the Government that legislation under subsection (3) should not be retrospective, and I do not wish to inflict on the Government in these circumstances any avoidable inconvenience. On the other hand. I do wish to make sure that the Government do not take power more than they foreseeably need, which is the practice of Governments and which I have resisted under Governments of all parties.
I refer to the taking of power to make Orders in Council which are not only retrospective immediately—in other words, which need to be retrospective to 11th November—but which may be succeeded continuously by more retrospections for at least the rest of this year. Retrospection of that type is a matter which should be plainly justified by the Government before the Committee accepts it. It is not a matter of course. It does not follow just because it is in the draft of the Bill.
We have not had long to table Amendments, and none of us has wished to put down more Amendments than might be necessary to ensure that certain points are on the record. The one I am making is one of them, and I hope that the Attorney-General—to whom I did make some attempt to teach history; though nothing would tempt me to teach


the Solicitor-General—I hope that the Attorney-General will persuade his colleague to look up the word "nostalgia" in the Oxford Dictionary.

Mr. Thorpe: I wish briefly to oppose the Amendment on two counts. The first, to place the most favourable construction on the intervention of the right hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), is that he intervenes as a lawyer, as one who is opposed to retrospective legislation and as one who likes to see the House of Commons passing only legislation which has effect in the future. The right hon. Gentleman therefore raises this matter because he is opposed to any measure, even in the present circumstances, which smacks of retrospectivity.
I say at once that I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman raises this matter with the best possible motives. Indeed, from the point of view of retrospection, I well remember leading the opposition to the War Damage Bill—on the grounds that it was retrospective— and greatly regretting the fact that the entire Conservative Front Bench abstained from voting on that occasion. My quarrel is not with the right hon. Gentleman, but I respectfully suggest that there are two objections.
The first is that it is not as if we are changing the existing law retrospectively. We are dealing with a situation in which the established law has been violently trampled upon by the Rhodesian rebel Government as from 11th November. We are, therefore, compensating for the procedural inadequacies of this House to deal with a situation as at the very moment of 11th November when U.D.I. was declared. It is, therefore, a totally different situation from those in which arguments against retro-pective legislation are normally employed.
We are dealing with an act of rebellion. It is arguable that it is an act of treason. There has been far too much of the suggestion from certain quarters in the last few days that this is something with which we might compromise. I would say to those who are prepared to appease and to mollify, and who say, "We cannot have retrospectivity, and perhaps we could modify this sanction or the other", that we are dealing with treason. I believe that we cannot compromise with treason, and that

the arguments against retrospection do not apply in this case.
Secondly, it is presumably suggested that
…the supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions …
could go very much beyond the purpose originally outlined in the Order in Council, but if that were done there would always be Parliamentary redress. The matter could then be raised in this House, because we in this country, at least, maintain democracy, even if they do not in Southern Rhodesia. I would therefore say that this is not a case in which lawyers should talk about the great dangers of retrospectivity. We are dealing with a case of treason, and I should like to suggest to members of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition that they might do a little more against compromising with treason.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has clearly compromised with his principles. At one time he is in favour of retrospection and, at another, against it. I see the point in the subsection that for dealing with any matter regarding the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia it may well be necessary to have retrospective powers. In fact, the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, when justifying this retrospective power, said that it was necessary to establish the invalidity of the new Constitution. It is therefore quite right that, to that extent, we should have retrospective power.
I submit, however, that when dealing with
…imposing prohibitions, restrictions or obligations in respect of transactions …
this power is really an abuse of constitutional practice. This is not a question of dealing with the acts of a rebel Government but of dealing with transactions that have been conducted in good faith by people of this nation with other people in Rhodesia. That is where I think the retrospection becomes an odious form of legislation.
Let me give an example or two. I know that the Government have carefully chosen that the contentious ban on tobacco should be removed from Parliament by the device of using the 1939 Act, which was an emergency Act designed to last for the emergency. But suppose they


wanted to put a ban on a commodity— let us say, beef—and were using the power under Clause 2(3) to prohibit it, it would be monstrously unfair to say that all transactions in beef that had been entered into by the businessmen of England with Rhodesian farmers were invalid and illegal because, a year later, the Government had put a ban on beef. That is an abuse that can be allowed for under this Bill. Equally, in three months' time the Government might say that it is illegal for people to fly scheduled air services to Rhodesia. If one could backdate the illegality to 11th November of this year it would clearly be an abuse, and I am sure that the Government and the right hon. and learned Attorney-General would not want to do that.
Therefore, if the Government cannot accept the deletion of the whole of the subsection they could limit the second part—line 4—by stating "…any provision made by or under subsection (2,a) or (2,b) of this section may have an effect from a date not earlier than 11th November, 1965." If they cannot do that here and now, they can do it in another place. We should be very careful not to break all constitutional principles when trying to deal with an illegal act by a rebel Government.

10.30 p.m.

Sir K. Pickthorn: May I ask a question which I put earlier in the day? I have been reminded of it by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). He said that we need not worry because any regulations under the Orders in Council which purported to be retrospective would be magicked away by democracy. That does not necessarily follow. I inquired earlier this afternoon—

Mr. Thorpe: Mr. Thorpe rose—

Sir K. Pickthorn: Perhaps the Attorney-General can tell me now. Is there to be provision to make sure that regulations—what he may remember were called "grandchildren" of Parliament not the Orders in Council but regulations under them—are we to understand that under this Bill those regulations will all come as a matter of course to our attention and all be open to control by this House?

The Attorney-General: The Amendment which has been proposed is to leave

out subsection (3) of Clause 2. There are two limbs to subsection (3), but I understand from the speeches of those who have supported the Amendment that they are concerned with the second limb. dealing with retrospection.
The Committee will have noticed that the retrospection is limited to the date of the rebellion. If the Government could not make Orders with retrospective effect to that date, the Government could be gravely hampered in dealing with the actions taken by the illegal regime in the meantime. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was sensitive of this point and referred in particular to the constitution which the illegal regime has purported to issue to the Rhodesian people. We need this retrospective power, and this is an admirable illustration of the need for it. to deal with that kind of action.
Orders in Council which will be issued under the authority of the enabling Bill when it becomes law will contain an express reference, if they include any element of retrospection, but without the general provision to make retrospective Orders in an enabling Bill, as the Committee knows, that power cannot be claimed for Orders in Council. These Orders will come before the House in due course and clearly they will not be exercised arbitrarily. This limited power of retrospection is necessary in the circumstances and I accordingly advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can the Attorney-General advise us on one point? Whereas, I think, the Budget comes into effect the moment it is read. at that time during the day, if I read this provision aright it would be possible by an Order made under the Council to be retrospective—not to the moment when the illegal declaration of independence was made, but to earlier in the day when there was still a legitimate Government. Is that correct? The provision merely gives the date of 11th November.

The Attorney-General: No. It is clearly intended not to antedate any retrospective proposal to a date earlier than 11th November. The terms of the subsection make that quite clear. The retrospection takes effect only in the period from 11th


November to the date or the Order in Council when that in due course is issued.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Attorney-General has missed the point. A considerable part of the day had gone by before this happened. The reason why I press the point is that in making any Orders which refer back to this date I wish the Government to make sure that those Orders are operative only from the time when the illegal declaration was made and not before. This is a point of some substance. Will the Attorney-General give an assurance to the Commiltee that this will not refer just to the date but from the time of the illegal declaration and before then?

The Attorney-General: I should have thought that I had made it clear that the retrospection will date from the moment when the illegal declaration of independence was made, namely, the date 11th November, 1965.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2. line 11, to leave out "twenty-eight" and to inser: "seven".
This is, to me, the whole kernel of the objection to the Bill. Normally, when we have the affirmative procedure it is a seven-day period, because these are important matters and it is right for Parliament to debate these matters as early as possible. Most of the Orders which have been mentioned by the Government are ones which I think are necessary and approve of. The one I object to is the ban, because I think it is wrong and I think it will be ineffective.
It is vital, if we are to preserve our Parliamentary democracy here, in the face of an unconstitutional act, that we should bring these matters to Parliament at once and discuss them, however inconvenient it may be to Parliament. In the old days it was always seven days for affirmative Resolutions. In 1939, when we had a war and there was the danger of bombing and the inconvenience of calling the House together quickly, that was extended under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, to 28 days.
I agree that there is the precedent of the 1939 Act for this, but this is not a war. I hope it is not. This is a time when we constitutionally want to get the Government to bring these matters early to Parliament. It is no good the Solicitor-

General saying, "It is all right. If the two Front Benches put their heads together, we will have this early". This is not the way to conduct matters in Parliament. The back benches, or even the Liberal Party, have occasionally to be consulted in these matters.
Therefore, I beg the Government to think again, because these are matters of great constitutional importance. If it is a trivial Order, of course there is no difficulty about the Government bringing it in in one or two days, because it will not be challenged. The only time a question will arise is when a great number of Members want to voice their doubts about an Order. Therefore, let us try to deal with an unconstitutional act in a constitutional way. It is a great pity that the House of Commons has lately got into the habit of saying, "It is all right. We have put it in the Bill, but the ' usual channels' and the old boy principle will preserve democracy". We should not tolerate this in a 1965 Parliament.
I beg the Government to think very carefully again about this. This is a matter to which many of us attach great importance. They will lose nothing by giving way on this point and making the 28 days 7 days. It may mean that the House has to sit a little late to get these Orders through, but these are important Orders. As these are matters which all of us, whatever varying views we hold on this, think are grievous matters which we want dispatched as quickly as possible, this change should be made.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I support the Amendment. On Second Reading the Solicitor-General said that any important Order would be brought in early. It would not take 28 days. If that is the case, surely there is no reason why seven days should not be substituted. In the case of Orders which were not important there would be no discussion in the House and they could go through without loss of time. I ask the Government to accept the Amendment. I am sure that if they did so it would make a considerable difference to the feelings of the Committee on this matter.

Sir C. Taylor: I contest the whole idea of the Order in Council procedure being used in a Bill of this kind. The Government would have been much wiser


if they had introduced one-Clause Bills. Orders in Council are—

The Chairman: Order. All we are discussing now is whether the period should be 28 days or seven days.

Sir C. Taylor: Very well, Sir Samuel, I will wait until we are on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I intended to deal with the 28 days but if I catch your eye I will speak, if I may, on the main Motion.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I think that the point has been made clear enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are a little unreasonable. I have been kept up all night by them on a Bill very much like this one but not so bad. We on this side have been very good. We have kept ourselves as short as we could and have put down the absolute minimum of Amendments, but even now, with ingenuity, I can make the debate last a long time if I put my mind to it. A certain amount of decency in the exercise of excessive power on an occasion like this is the least we can expect, even from them.
It is very dangerous when a Government start to identify themselves completely with the national interest. What is the minimum of special regulations which will protect the country against its enemies? 
What is the minimum here—28 days or seven? All the earlier words which I used after rebuking hon. Members opposite below the Gangway came from Sir Stafford Cripps.

The Attorney-General: The proposal it the Amendment is to reduce to seven days the period within which the Government would need to seek the leave of both Houses for Orders in Council that are proposed. I assure the Committee that, of course, the Government are determined to proceed constitutionally to deal with rebellion. Indeed, it would be a very strange turn of fate if it were to do otherwise, but the proposal is that the Orders in Council shall require the affirmative approval of both Houses within 28 days.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has referred to the precedent of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, which also had that period of 28 days, but perhaps I should

remind him that the Orders referred to in that case, being Orders imposing charges, needed the approval only of the House of Commons, not of another place, so that the Government had more time to get Parliamentary approval than they are allowing themselves in the present case.
10.45 p.m.
My advice to the Committee is that a period of seven days would be an impossibly short time in which to get the necessary Resolutions through both Houses. I have more than once given the Government's assurance that it is, in fact, intended to introduce, in particular, the Orders in Council of substance at the earliest possible time, which will be very soon, and having given that assurance to the House and referred to the precedent of 1939—there is, incidentally, in the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964 a precedent where the period is 40 days— I ask the House to reject the Amendment. We are not asking for 40 days or, indeed, for 40 nights. We are asking for 28 days. My advice to the Committee is that that is a reasonable period.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir C. Taylor: I deplore the principle of using Orders in Council in a Bill of this nature.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will carry on their conversations more quietly.

Sir C. Taylor: During the war, as a matter of emergency, the House accepted the principle of Orders in Council, but I should have thought that it would be more practical and far better on this occasion if the Government presented a series of one-Clause Bills which, if reasonable, the House would not hold up.
I remind the Committee that an Order in Council cannot be amended. It must be either accepted or rejected. That is a great disadvantage. If we had a series of one-clause Bills it might save the Government time eventually because there might not be opposition to such a Bill but only in matters of detail.
I should like an assurance on another point. I have had considerable experience of Orders in Council. As my right


hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) has said, they can have grandchildren. An Order in Council can state that further subsidiary Orders can be made by the Minister concerned and that these are not liable to be vetted by the House.
I hope that the Attorney-General will assure us that, if there have to be Orders in Council, we shall not have such a ruse and that an Order in Council will not say that subsequent Orders to be brought in will not be subject to the vigilance of the House.

Mr. Peter Emery: I have two purely Committee points with which I did not wish to bother the House at an earlier stage. The powers that are being granted under this Bill are as extensive as is possible and I ask for an assurance that the Government will use the Bill in all instances in the future for any action they intend to take in dealing with the Rhodesian problem.
It is obvious that so far—and this matter has been skirted round—emergency powers have been used. I believe that no one would suggest that the Defence Regulations were intended to deal with this sort of situation. However, I can understand the Government's position in having to use them until this Bill becomes law. But a number of us on this side of the Committee would feel it wrong, once we had given the Government this Bill, if they were not to use it to deal with any matters concerned with Rhodesia in the future and were to resort to powers that exist at the moment.
Secondly, in dealing with any Orders in Council as Statutory Instruments, I hope that the Government will fully consider that they should not use the power to revoke in certain agreements but shuld rather use suspension. I give a direct example. The powers under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement allow the Government immediately unilaterally to revoke the present quota with any country. It would, I believe, be wrong for the Government to wish to revoke when, under this Bill, they could suspend.
If they revoke, they are taking away the direct carrot which might exist for the Government of the Governor in Southern Rhodesia to try to get people to

gather round some form of administration in opposition to Mr. Smith. If they merely suspend, the Government, if they wished, could immediately restore the position. If they revoke, that may not be possible. I hope that the Government will fully consider that when drafting Statutory Instruments in order to try to ensure that suspension rather than revocation is the action taken.
My two points are quite simple: using the Bill rather than any previous powers and my direct question about revocation and suspension.

Mr. J. Amery: The Attorney-General has been extremely inflexible in his remarks so far, and the same has been true of the comments of the Solicitor-General. If the Government are to appeal for national unity in this matter, they should try to make a slightly greater effort to meet the very reasonable criticisms which have been made from this side of the Committee.
Having served in the Colonial Office and having had some experience of colonial emergencies, I fully appreciate that the Executive must have power to act swiftly where it has direct responsibility, but that is not yet the case with Her Majesty's Government. They do not have administrative responsibility inside Rhodesia, or, at any rate, the means to carry it out. It would help the Committee if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give us some idea of the kind of circumstances in which he thinks that action would have to be taken very swiftly and yet the House of Commons need pass its judgment only 28 days later. This could not by any stretch of the imagination apply to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement or the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us a hypothetical instance of the kind of circumstance in which the Government would have to act quickly and yet would not be able conveniently to come to the House for as long as 28 days.
I want also to refer to the power to make a new Order. The Solicitor-General said that the words could be interpreted in a way which would allow the Government to repeat an Order if it had not been automatically approved by the House, but that this would never happen. In that case, why do the words


have to be there? Could the provision not be expressed differently? Having swallowed the 28-day period, if we are to swallow it, it is a little difficult on top of that to have to swallow this provision about a new Order.
The Solicitor-General was extremely unreasonable in refusing to give an assurance that if the Official Opposition asked for a recall of Parliament to discuss any Order which might arise in the three or four months of the Summer Recess, their request would be granted. The Government have appealed for national unity in all this matter, but if they are to go on like this they cannot expect the full co-operation of the House of Commons when we debate any Orders which may come forward.

11.0 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I wish to refer to the position of the Rhodesian police, and it may be in order for me to do so in view of the words in Clause 2(1):
Her Majesty may by Order make such provision in relation to Southern Rhodesia, or persons or things in any way belonging to or connected with Southern Rhodesia …
The Rhodesian police may well find themselves in quite a dilemma now and in the few weeks which are to follow. They, like the police in this country, are officers of the Crown, responsible for the enforcement of the law. One would hope that they would take the same view of their duties as the judges have taken of their jurisdiction, but above all—and this has already been conceded by the Prime Minister in an earlier debate—it is in the interests of all concerned, especially in the interests of the people of Rhodesia at large, that law and order should be mantained.
The police will find themselves in a somewhat unusual position. They may well find themselves attempting to enforce valid laws, but doing so at the behest of an illegal government. I think that the police are entitled to clarification of their position and they should have a good deal of indulgence from Her Majesty's Government. I hope that if any police officer in Rhodesia who has ties with the United Kingdom finds that he cannot conscientiously continue to do his duties, the United Kingdom Government will do something for him

if he loses his position in the Rhodesian police. I would be grateful for enlightenment from the Attorney-General as to what the attitude of the Government would be towards such a police officer.
A further point I wish to raise arises from subsection (2,c) which gives power by Order in Council for
imposing prohibitions, restrictions or obligations in respect of transactions relating to Southern Rhodesia or any such persons or things …
I would be grateful if the Attorney-General would tell us quite clearly whether the proposed embargo on purchases of tobacco is on the basis of existing powers to restrict imports to this country or whether the Government propose to lay an Order in Council under this subsection. It is very important that we should know that. This is a very grave matter.
I am not totally opposed to all sanctions proposed by the Government, and I think that some of them follow from the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but this tobacco sanction is one which the House should consider very carefully before supporting it. The last tobacco crop, as I understand it, has already been sold and, therefore, it does not enter into the picture, and harvesting of the next crop will not start until next April. A great deal could happen between now and then, and one hopes that many of these matters will be resolved to the satisfaction of the United Kingdom and the people of Rhodesia. If not Her Majesty's Government will find themselves—and I would like clarification on this point—having to ask the people of this country drastically to reduce their tobacco smoking, or finding large sums of dollars, something in excess of £25 million, in order to replace—

The Chairman: Order. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting very wide of the Clause which we are now discussing.

Sir D. Renton: I am sorry, Sir Samuel. It was quite unintentional. I hope that I have said enough on this Clause. We are giving the Government very wide powers to impose a complete embargo. I was merely raising this issue in order that the Committee might be certain of the character of the powers


which it is giving to the Government, especially on this specific issue. Nothing affects the economy of Rhodesia more than the purchase of tobacco by this country from Rhodesia.
I hope that I have said enough to alert hon. Members to the very drastic nature of this power. Exercise of this power could not be said to be directed specifically against the illegal government in Rhodesia, but it would hurt us and the whole population of Rhodesia if it were stringently enforced.

Mr. Grieve: I hope that I shall not delay the passage of this very important matter too long if I take up again the point that I made when I intervened in the speech of the Solicitor-General in the debate on Second Reading. I refer to the inclusion of the power to revoke any provisions of the 1961 Constitution which is. contained in subsection (2,a) of Clause 2 of the Bill.
I am bound to say that I do not recollect having heard from any Government spokesman in the course of the debates on the Bill any satisfactory explanation as to why this extremely wide power should be contained in the Bill.1have asked the learned AttorneyGeneral what conceivable contingency which may arise in the extremely serious situation in which we find ourselves could not be met either by the suspension or by the amendment of the 1961 Constitution.
As it stands, subsection (2,a)of Clause 2 gives the Government power by executive act to review not only any part, but, since any part may include the whole if taken together, the whole of the 1961 Constitution, and to revoke it. When that is read with subsection (3,b)of Clause 3, which provides that
the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia 1961 as in force immediately before the expiration of that section
shall not be affected by the expiration of Section 2, the Government have power under that to revoke the 1961 Constitution entirely.
Why should the Government take that power? What conceivable contingency would not be met by the suspension, if necessary, of the whole of the 1961 Constitution for as long as is deemed expedient?
What worries me and a number of my hon. Friends is the effect that the inclusion of this power in the Bill will have upon moderate opinion in Rhodesia. Will many people of moderate opinion who might rally to the legally constituted Government of Rhodesia and oppose the rebellion not in the last resort not be very worried by the inclusion in the Bill of the power—because such it is—to revoke the 1961 Constitution by Order in Council under the Bill?
I ask the Attorney-General the direct question, would it not be better to sacrifice and strike out the revoking power, which I am boqnd to say seems to me to give the Government no further power than would be given to them by the power to suspend in any contingency that one might foresee?
I ask the learned Attorney-General to deal specifically with that point, on which I, for one, think that we have had no satisfactory explanation.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Before we leave the Clause, may I make a very short point about the terms in which it has been discussed in Committee?
Hon. Members on both sides will perhaps agree with me in deploring the frequency with which we have heard such words as "treason", "illegal regime", "rebel Government", and so on used by several hon. Members.

The Chairman: Order. It does not arise on the Clause.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Then may I pass on and say that, before we leave the Clause, such provocative words as we have heard used are really a very poor way of describing people who, for better or for worse, have had to make a most agonising decision.

The Chairman: Order. This really does not arise on the Clause.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I wish to raise the question of the removal from Rhodesia, and from those trading with Rhodesia, of the export guarantee arrangements. Will the removal of these guarantees be under existing powers or by Order in Council? This is a very important point, because throughout these debates, which doubtless are going to be of an extended sort over the next month or two, we have to


consider not merely the interests of the policy of this Government and of this House, but the effect that these sanctions may well have on the people of this country.
To put forward the removal of export guarantees from our own exporters seems, without any explanation, to be a possible blow to the economy of this country. Do not let us delude ourselves that there are not others who will step into this breach. Do not let us delude ourselves that we are not at this moment giving export guarantees to countries which are frequently hostile to our 'so-called grand alliance. We are giving export guarantees to Cuba, to Red China, and to many other parts of the world whose policies are entirely in opposition to our own grand policies.
To inflict on the exporters of this country this assault of sanctions, which will merely be against the interests of the British trader, without any effect on Rhodesia, needs the earnest consideration of this House, because there is no question but that the gap which we are creating by the removal of these guarantees will quickly be filled by others.

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going much wider than what we are discussing.

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry, Sir Samuel, but I do not want to be put aside by a passing answer to this question. I am asking a vital question, namely, whether or not this is to be carried out under existing powers, or by a special Order in Council, and I am merely making it clear to the Attorney-General that what I am asking is not a trivial question, but one that is important to many people in this country, both workpeople and employers.

Mr. John Hall: I rise to make one point. It relates to the problem of freedom of speech in this country. On Friday I raised this point in an intervention in the speech of the Attorney-General, when I said:
For the guidance of those outside the House and who cannot command the privileges of this House, can the Attorney-General say whether anyone who speaks outside or writes articles in support of the point of view of the present illegal Government could be impeached for treason?".

The answer the House received seemed to be satisfactory, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
…it is not the intention of this Government to sufle the free expression of opinion, and clearly the free range of discussion about these matters conducted in the Press will be permitted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 521.]
Today some doubt seems to be thrown on this, and the interpretation of absence of censorship seems to be rather narrow. It is important from the point of view of people outside this House who may wish to comment on events to know whether or not, if they write an article or make a speech, at the end of which they may come down on the side of the present illegal Government—

The Chairman: Order. I cannot see how this has anything to do with what we are discussing.

Mr. Hall: With respect, Sir Samuel, I would refer you to Clause 2(2,c) which I would have thought had considerable reference to what I am saying, because it provides power
for imposing prohibitions, restrictions or obligations in respect of transactions relating to Southern Rhodesia or any such person or things,
as appears to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient as aforesaid",
and so on. The Government may be prepared to impose a particular restriction on persons in this country who make certain speeches, or who write certain articles, outside the confines of this House. It is very important from the point of view of the Press and of authors of communications in this country that they should know exactly where they stand.
If, rightly or wrongly, something is said outside the House which is designed to show to the general public that the writer or speaker supports what is being done in Rhodesia, will that person be guilty of treason? If so, could they be impeached and brought before a court in this country? I am asking only because it is important that the House should be quite clear and that people outside the House who may wish to write or comment upon the events of the last few days should be clear where they stand.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I want to reinforce what has just been said


by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). It is necessary that Her Majesty's Government should make it much clearer than has been made already what are the rights and liberties of the subject on the question of comments on the Rhodesian situation. It seems that Her Majesty's Government are now pursuing a course of intimidation by ambiguity. All this talk of treason, treachery and traitors to which reference has been made in this debate is becoming rather immoderate and is getting a little out of hand. There was never any such talk at the time when another group of colonists were actually at war with this country. People who sent the rebels money and gave them comfort were never indicted for treason. I have referred to a certain gentleman who was indicted for libel for sending money to the rebels. We should be clearer about this and not have this vague reference made in the hope that some people may be intimidated.
I want to say something about the question of revocation. The Committee is grateful to the learned Attorney-General for the courtesy with which he has met our points. This is in sharp distinction to the demagogic and irresponsible ranting with which his learned colleague wound up the Second Reading debate. It came ill from a Treasury Bench which was asking for national unity in these matters. We are grateful to the Attorney-General.
I simply want to ask him—because he is learned in the law and I am not— how the Government would be in any way disadvantaged if the word "revoking" ere omitted. The words "suspending, amending or adding to any of provisions of the Constitution" would give the Government all the powers they desire.
Reference has also been made to certain measures that the Government will take referring to further embargoes. I am alarmed on constitutional grounds at the wide extent of the prohibitions, restrictions or obligations, and the powers which the Government are proposing to take to themselves in respect of those prohibitions, restrictions or obligations. These, presumably, could include an oil embargo or a complete trade embargo. These are great questions, which should be brought to the House for legislation. I do not see any reason why they could not be.

The House is quite capable of passing legislation with the necessary speed in the national interest. I am keenly concerned at the wide scope of Clause 2(2,c).

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-North-wood): I should be most grateful if the Attorney-General would tell the House exactly what constitutes treason and where people stand, whether they be in the public service or in the judicial department. It seems to me that people are genuinely worried about this situation.

Mr. W. T. Williams: On a point of order. So far as I know, there is nothing about treason in Clause 2. If there is, I shall be glad to be directed to it.

The Chairman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is out of order, I shall call his attention to the fact.

Mr. Crowder: I appreciate that, Sir Samuel, and I am grateful. I do not wish to embarrass the Attorney-General, but the Committee should face this question. He was faced with this matter early last week. The House of Commons and the people of Rhodesia want to know what the Government's view and the Law Officers' view is of treason in law. I think that I know what it is, but I am not going to say so—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting a little wide of the Clause.

Mr. Crowder: I am much obliged, Sir Samuel, but I have managed to put my point to the Attorney-General, that there is no reason, in my view—I say this subject to your Ruling—why he should not give that definition to the House tonight.

Sir J. Hobson: I am sorry to add to the burdens of the Attorney-General, who has so many questions to answer, but there is just one point which I should like to put to him. Can he assure me that a view I have formed is wholly wrong— which is an unusual request from me to him. I have formed the view that, under Clause 2 as it stands, it would be possible for the Orders in Council to provide that Ministers should be able to make subsequent Regulations. This is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and by


my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn).
This is important, as it affects Parliamentary procedure, because it would mean, if I am right in my view, that it would be impossible for the Government to arrange, under Orders in Council, for what are called "grandchildren" Regulations. I should like, first of all, to get the view of the Attorney-General as to whether it is correct to say that Orders in Council could allow Ministers to make delegated Regulations without any Parliamentary supervision. If that is the position in law, will he say that the Government will, on every possible occasion, avoid that procedure, and not put in Regulation-making powers for Ministers unless it is absolutely vital and there is no other way of dealing with the matter?

The Attorney-General: I have been asked a multiplicity of questions. Some of them raise matters which were debated at considerable length on Friday and again today. Accordingly, I must ask forgiveness if I do not go into those matters which have been traversed at some length already. But I will deal with two specific matters upon which my assistance has been sought by the Committee.
In regard to the position of "grandchildren"—which is a term of art to which I have become accustomed in the course of the day—these, I am instructed —or I am informed—[Laughter.]—I must not revert to the happier days when I was in receipt of instructions—I am informed that "grandchildren" are not within Clause 2(5). In particular, "grandchildren" can be subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny by express provision of the parent Order in Council. An Order in Council which will do that does precisely this, as the Committee will see in due course when the Order in Council is presented to the House.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) what the position was in regard to revocation. The broad position is that the only power of revocation which is provided for in the Bill relates to revocation of provisions of the Constitution. What will be done in regard to the sugar quotas will be suspension rather than revocation. So we are concerned, in this respect, entirely with

revocation of provisions of the 1961 Constitution.
The necessity for the provision for revocation is that, when one amends one part of a Constitution, one may be left with residual "dead wood" which will call for revocation. I assure the Committee, as I have done before and as the Prime Minister has done, that it is not intended to engage upon any major revocation, or, in other words, to rewrite the 1961 Constitution, without the matter being brought before the House. I have said that several times, and I hope that the Committee will not think that there is any sinister purpose in the inclusion of the provision for revocation.
I was asked by the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) whether I could give some hypothetical instances in which the Government might be faced with a situation requiring them quickly to introduce an Order in Council in which it would not be practical for the matter to be dealt with by requiring the leave of the House before the Order in Council could take effect. I think that that was his point. All I can say about that is that we are dealing with a rebellion, with a dangerous situation which is liable to change from day to day. I do not think that it would be right for me, whether as Attorney-General or in any other position which I might hold, to conjure up tigers from the dark or to speak of catastrophes which may not arise.
We hope that the strong position and firm stand being taken by the Government will still rally men of good will to the rule of law and proper, legal constitutional development. I feel that I should not be pressed by the Committee to describe the kind of hypothetical situation which the Government might find themselves in where these powers were necessary, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will, on reflection, think that that is a reasonable position to take.

Sir C. Taylor: rose—

The Attorney-General: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue? I hope he will not think me discourteous. He has not honoured the Committee or the House by his attendance today—

Sir C. Taylor: Yes, I have been here and I have spoken.

The Attorney-General: If that is so, I immediately withdraw what has been discourteous on my part. But I have been asked a lot of questions, the hon. Gentleman has had his run, and perhaps he will let me proceed.

Sir C. Taylor: I wanted only to clarify the point which the Attorney-General is making. If he thought it necessary to introduce an Order in Council, say, two days before the Easter Recess, the Whit-sun Recess or even the Summer Recess, what would be the position of the House at that time?

The Attorney-General: If a sudden crisis were to arise—again, I do not think that I ought to outline a hypothetical situation which may not arise; one does not want to put ideas into the heads of rebels or, indeed, anyone else in Rhodesia—but if a situation arose in which urgent action of that kind took place involving a fundamental Order in Council taking massive new powers, I have little doubt that the Government would want to consult the Opposition in the ordinary way, and the matter would have to be dealt with, perhaps by recall of the House. I know not. Certainly, we cannot exclude that from the possibilities of the future. But, as I say, I hope that it will not arise. It is because we want to deal with probable situations which may arise that we are seeking the general powers under the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) asked me questions about general matters regarding the agonising dilemmas of the police and public servants, and I can do no more than remind him of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in this connection on Friday. But there is one matter on which I can, I think, give some assistance. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the proposed tobacco embargo would be based on existing powers. The answer is "Yes". The tobacco embargo came into force today, 15th November, under the Government's powers under the Import of Goods (Control) Order, 1954.
I make no party point in underlining the date 1954. The position is that the importation of goods into the United Kingdom generally is prohibited—and I confess that I found this a fascinating point, of which I was not aware until last night—except under the authority of

Board of Trade licence. That is under the authority of the Import of Goods (Control) Order, 1954, which is made, in turn, under the authority of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was familiar with those legislative provisions. Thus, a ban on the import of tobacco and sugar was made under the power of that 1954 Order and, as I have said, that has come into force today.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Turton: Would the Attorney-General explain how that Order and the powers under the 1939 Act were excepted from the general repeal of all emergency legislation, with certain exceptions, under the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959?

The Attorney-General: I do not have an immediate answer to that question. However, the position is that the Import of Goods (Control) Order, 1954, retained its validity and the ban on the import of tobacco has been operated under the terms of that Order. An instruction was issued taking effect today, 15th November, which was Amendment No. 4 to the open general licence dated 14th December, 1964, granted by the Board of Trade.
As the Government have that power already, it is proper that the power should be used to achieve this purpose, which the Government regard as essential and as showing the seriousness of our intentions in regard to economic sanctions.
It is true that it is not proposed to use the machinery of the Enabling Bill because, as I say, the Government have the legal power already. But, of course, this House has the means at its disposal, if it does not approve of the exercise of this power—by Motion, on a Supply Day or by various other means—to express its disapproval if it wishes to do so. Happily, the procedures of the House give abundant opportunity for disapproval to be expressed.

Mr. Peter Emery: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I put a specific question to him on this point? One can understand that the Government would use these powers when they did not have the Bill before the Committee I asked whether the Government would


give an assurance that, when dealing with Rhodesia in future, they would use the powers, extensive as they are, contained in the Bill and not use any powers contained under any other legislation.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Peter Emery: Because the powers under the Bill are so wide and extensive and were, in any case, asked for by the Government specifically to deal with the Rhodesia problem.

The Attorney-General: The Government will have to consider the nature of any future action they may have to take. All I wish to say is that they will, of course, take the House into their confidence in regard to the actions they take, but what precise legal powers they exercise the Government themselves will have to determine. I cannot give an omnibus undertaking as to what legal powers in regard to any critical situation the Government may need to use. The Government have to govern, and govern in a position of danger and rebellion, and I am quite sure that right hon. and hon. Members would not wish to tie the hands of Government: when the dogs of rebellion begin to run wild, one knows not what the end of the day may bring forth. I respectfully submit that the Government have indicated their wish to be frank with the House and for the House to have a full opportunity of debating the matters that arise.
I have now received reinforcement of the information I tentatively expressed to the House, that the Import Etc. Act, 1939, was not repealed in 1959.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) asked me about export guarantees. The Government are not seeking further powers in respect of export guarantees; they are just not going to give any more in respect of Rhodesia.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) asked me a question about the law of treason, but fascinating as I would find a dissertation on the subject I doubt whether the Committee stage of this Bill is an appropriate occasion for the Attorney-General to make it.
A question was raised by several hon. Members about some observations I

made, with astonishing innocence, when I made my statement on Friday on certain legal aspects resulting from the illegal declaration of independence. The hon. Member for Wycombe asked
… can the Attorney-General say whether anyone who speaks outside or writes articles in support of the point of view of the present illegal Government could be impeached for treason?
I gave the answer:
Unlike the Rhodesian Government, it is not the intention of this Government to stifle the free expression of opinion, and clearly the free range of discussion about these matters conducted in the Press will be permitted
There was a great sigh from below the Gangway when I said that, as though I was very kindly permitting free discussion of opinion in the Press. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition intervened, saying:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to discussion in the Press. Presumably he means that discussion of any kind or on radio or television would obviously be covered.
To that, I replied:
Clearly that is so.
Then I thought that I would explain my use of the word "permitted", which suggested that I was engaged in an act of generosity to the members of the Press by permitting them free expression of opinion. I said:
When I say ' permitted ' I mean that which is legal under the law. We are not going to set up any kind of censorship in this situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 521.]
Now I am pressed about the use of the words:
When I say ' permitted ' I mean that which is legal under the law.
Of course, that is absolutely right. If, for instance, a newspaper in this country engaged in incitement to treason or sedition in relation to the Rhodesian rebellion, it might well be guilty of criminal acts and might well be liable to prosecution. That is the position under the law. It has always been the position under the law, and the position is unchanged by the circumstances of the rebellion. So one cannot give either as Attorney-General or in any way a free range to the Press either to engage in sedition or treason.
This Government are determined to proceed legally and constitutionally in this


matter and to use legal and constitutional methods to meet illegal rebellious treason.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Wall: I hope the Government realise that so far as I and, I believe, a number of my hon. Friends are concerned, they have been given the Bill reluctantly. They have been given it because it is established that penalties must flow from the illegal action of Mr. Smith in Rhodesia and that it is necessary to assist the Governor in maintaining constitutional government in Rhodesia.
I believe that the choice before the Government in their dealing with Rhodesia will lead either to chaos or conciliation. I must say that after the speech of the Attorney-General it seemed likely that they would choose chaos rather than conciliation. I wish to make clear that I and many hon. Members on this side of the House are wholly opposed to punitive sanctions, and if the Prime Minister comes to the House in a week or so, as I believe he may, and ask for the imposition of oil sanctions on the excuse that the United Nations will intervene unless these are imposed, then I hope that the request will be fought tooth and nail in this House and in the country. I hope that the message has got through to the Government, thus far and no further.

11.44 p.m.

Sir Peter Roberts: I do not propose to detain the House for long. I was unfortunate in not being able to get in during the Second Reading, but that is not the reason for my intervening now.
Having listened to arguments on both sides and arguments on the Amendments put forward in Committee, my experience leads me to believe that the sanctions which we are considering at the moment

will not be effective. If that is so, the ultimate result of what we are doing may lead us unwillingly into force. This I am opposed to. As a result, I propose to negative the Third Reading.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Having failed to get a supporter to oppose the Second Reading, I have no wish to try again. But I think I am entitled at this stage to ask for one point of clarification. It relates to the operation of Clause 4. I am completely convinced that the Government have powers to contain or control the present illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia, the one led by Mr. Smith. However, I am not at all convinced that the Bill as it stands gives the Government power to control the activities of other illegal regimes which might be introduced and operated out-with Southern Rhodesia. We all must know that there is a possibility, albeit a slight one, that at least two Governments in exile will be set up illegally, rather in the same way as Mr. Smith's. Can we have an assurance from the Government that the Bill gives them power to control the activities of other such r6gimes, and if they have the powers do they intend to use them?

11.46 p.m.

Commander Sir Peter Agnew: Tonight we have enacted, or almost enacted, a solemn tragedy. We have given to the Government awful powers. We have done so deliberately and almost unanimously. So the Bill will shortly go forward to another place as being the expressed will and determination of this House to assert the power of the Crown in relation to Rhodesia. I believe that these powers have been given in a spirit in which they should not be used—vindictively. They may inflict a small amount of suffering on the whole Rhodesian people, which they will do indiscriminately; or they could inflict a great deal of suffering.
I believe that in the end the restoration of a proper relation between Britain and Rhodesia will not come through the use and possession of these powers so rightly given. It will come, finally and eventually, through a reconciliation between reasonable people in Britain and reasonable political leaders in Rhodesia.

11.47 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyfte: The House has accorded the Bill an unopposed Second Reading and Committee stage. We are now on the final stage—Third Reading.
I want to make one suggestion to right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I very much doubt whether some of the intemperate language which we have heard from hon. Members opposite in the course of to-day's debate, particularly language used, unfortunately, by both Law Officers of the Crown—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, phrases such as "dogs of rebellion"— is calculated to encourage the moderate elements that we hope to encourage in Rhodesia. Indeed, I believe that such language will deeply offend many moderates of passionate loyalty to this country and will drive them into the extreme position which we do not want to drive them into.
The House should not be selective about the way in which we moralise in our advocacy of sanctions. There has been much loose talk of sanctions today. I suspect that there will be some even looser talk of sanctions in another place. There may be sanctions which automatically follow any declaration of independence; but the other type of sanctions, those of a punitive kind which the Prime Minister says he does not want to embark upon but which some of his colleagues do, are in a very different category.
If these sanctions are going to be imposed on a moral basis, do not let there be any cant about this. If Rhodesia is a police State there are other police States within the Commonwealth in Africa. If the will of the majority is being thwarted in Rhodesia, I can think of other countries in the Commonwealth where both the wishes of the majority and the rights of the minority are being similarly thwarted. Therefore, we must not be selective in the way we moralise about these things. We must do so without cant.
I hope that as a result of the passage of the Bill the Government will so conduct their affairs and phrase their statements as to narrow rather than widen, and mend rather than tear, otherwise we shall drive every single moderate into the

extremist camp, and the last stage of Rhodesia will be worse than the first.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE COMPENSATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.52 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short, four-Clause Bill to help owner-occupiers who lose their houses in slum clearance. It helps them in two ways. Clause 1 helps those who are entitled to what is known as the owner-occupiers' supplement. Clause 2 helps all owner-occupiers of condemned houses who still have debts to pay off on their property at the time they lose it. Clauses 3 and 4 contain financial and supplemental provisions.
The basic rule of compensation in slum clearance is that only site value is paid for houses which have been found unfit to live in. But Parliament decided in 1956 that special treatment was justified for owner-occupiers who bought their houses between the outbreak of war when slum clearance was suspended and the end of 1955 when its resumption was announced. They had to have somewhere to live, and with no slum clearance going on they could not be expected to consider that any risk of demolition was involved in buying property which, though it might not be up to standard, provided a home.
These owner-occupiers get a supplement equal to the difference between site value and market value. The provisions for that supplement expire on 12th December. There has been a feeling on both sides of the House that action is necessary to deal with the situation which will arise then. Some discussion of the matter took place during the debate on 21st May on the Land Compensation (Amendment) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said then that the


Government recognised that there would be difficulties. The question was to find the best way of meeting them.
A simple extension of the supplement for another period of years would not do. It has to be recognised that the payment of the supplement already causes anomalies. An owner-occupier who is entitled to it gets market value. His neighbour, next door, who bought at a different time, may get only site value. The one could be a few hundred pounds better off than the other. A number of examples of this were quoted in the debate on 21st May, in particular by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). Just to carry on making provision for the payment of the supplement to those entitled to it could only lead to a widespread feeling of grievance.
It might be said that the answer is to give everyone market value, but we believe that that would be wrong. Slums were recognised as a problem long before an effective attack was made on them. All attempts to deal with them foundered on financial obstacles until the site value rule was introduced. It is fundamental to an effective slum clearance programme and has. been recognised to be so by successive Governments ever since it was introduced in 1919. Its basis is obviously correct. The public should not have to pay for houses which have been found, after a very careful process, with full safeguards for the owners, to be unfit for people to live in.
The supplement has always been seen as a purely temporary measure. It is due to end in December because Parliament thought that by then everyone entitled to it would have had at least ten years' possession of his property and that a return to basic compensation at site value would be justified. The easiest course would be to let the provisions expire in December as Parliament originally intended that they should. All owner-occupiers affected by slum clearance would then be treated in the same way. Invidious distinctions in the amount of compensation received would cease.
But the facts of the situation point to a middle way, which retains the essentially temporary character of the supplement but also recognises that the number of slums which remain to be cleared is so

large that there must be many owner-occupiers who expected to get the supplement whose houses are still waiting to be included in authorities' clearance programmes. The Government have decided that it would be fair to continue the supplement for owner-occupiers who bought between September, 1939 and December, 1955 who have not had more than 15 years' possession of their houses. Clause 1 does this.
The effect is to keep the scheme going for a further period during which all who continue to qualify will receive uniform treatment; and also to run it down gradually until it comes to an end in December, 1970. By that time we shall be a long way from the conditions which justified the introduction of the supplement in the first place and the scheme can properly be wound up.
Clause 1 also changes the stage in the slum clearance process on which entitlement depends. Under the present provisions a house must be purchased or— where it is subject to a clearance or demolition order—vacated before 13th December, 1965, for the owner to qualify. But purchase of houses included in the same Order can take place at quite different times and may not occur for more than a year after an order has been confirmed.
There has been considerable doubt amongst owners whose houses are included in orders which have already been confirmed whether their houses will be purchased or vacated before 13th December. Many authorities have been anxious to help them and have tried to push ahead with their procedures much faster than usual in cases where they know the owner might benefit. But, with the best will in the world, they could not have avoided situations in which purchase did not take place until the wrong side of the terminal date.
There is also some room for argument about what technically marks the date of "purchase" under a compulsory purchase order. In the last resort this is a point for the courts to decide. But there ought not to be any uncertainty about a matter on which entitlement to the supplement depends. Everyone affected should know exactly where he stands. That is why under Clause 1 the decisive date becomes the date on which an order is made by a local authority—


that is, the date on which the authority seal it.
All owner-occupiers for whom the Government are extending the supplement will know that if they have not had 15 years' possession of their houses on the date they are included in an order, they will keep their entitlement no matter how long a period passes before their houses are purchased or vacated. In practice this will mean that because of the lapse of time between making an order and the completion of purchase, some owners may enjoy as much as 16 years or more use of their houses and still get the supplement.
The change in the date on which entitlement depends applies also to orders made before the present provisions expire on 12th December. This will set at rest the anxieties of owner-occupiers and authorities, to which reference has already been made, about whether houses in orders already confirmed would be purchased or vacated by then. It will also benefit those owner-occupiers who bought their houses in the appropriate period and are affected by orders now going through the various stages of the procedure or made in the interval between now and 12th December. Far from purchase or vacation taking place, there is obviously no chance in these cases that the orders will be decided before the present provisions expire.
I repeat that owner-occupiers who bought between 1st September, 1939, and 12th December, 1955, who qualify for the supplement, and whose houses are included in orders made by 12th December this year, will continue to keep their right to it even if their houses are not purchased or vacated till after that date and even if they have had more than 15 years use. The 15 year condition begins to apply only with orders made after 12th December.

Mr. Graham Page: Is it the case that the five-year period in which the owner has to acquire his property means that if he acquired it between 1939 and 1950 he will in future not get the benefit of the supplementary payment?

Mr. Mellish: That is so, because he would have already had his 15 year period. I hope that is the answer. This Measure will really deal with the later

part of this period, in which the 15 year period will apply to 1970. It is the extra five years being added on which will resolve the anomalies the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Those who obtained houses in the period the hon. Gentleman has in mind are in the main not cases which are coming up now. The Bill will deal with those who bought much later.
The other main provision of the Bill is found in Clause 2, which helps all owner-occupiers of condemned houses with outstanding debts on their property. The site value rule must be maintained. Its merits are clear—and I think that I carry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and certainly the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) with me on this. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South—my predecessor in office—agreed in the debate last May that site value was the right basis of compensation in most of these cases where slums are found to be generally unfit.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I think in that debate that I sought to establish a distinction between the general owner and the owner-occupier. I certainly did not accept site value, generally speaking, for the owner-occupier.

Mr. Mellish: Perhaps I misunderstood the debate. I read it carefully, however, and certainly the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South re-emphasised that site value was a principle which should be maintained. As has been pointed out in previous debates, it has been maintained since 1919. I thought we were generally agreed on that.
As I was saying, the site value rule must be maintained. Its merits are clear. A slum clearance programme which has to deal with the 770,000 unfit houses shown in local authorities' returns earlier this year simply cannot be conducted on any other basis.
There can be no question of extending the supplement to owners who bought their houses after December, 1955, when slum clearance had begun again. Full publicity was given to its resumption and owners who have purchased since then must be assumed to have known what the effects would be. But there is a


problem where an owner-occupier who gets only site value has to carry on paying off a mortgage. He has lost his home, to which, whatever its structural condition, he was attached. He may have become a local authority tenant and have to pay rent. He may have bought another house of his own and taken out another mortgage to do so.
In either event, the existence of a debt which he has to continue to meet as well will be a burden on him. In some instances the local authority may consider that an owner-occupier is in this situation because of information it gave him. For example, an authority at the time of purchase may have told the owner, in all good faith, that there was no prospect of the house in which he expressed interest being included in its clearance programmes for some time ahead. On the strength of that assurance he may have entered into a mortgage. The authority itself may even have granted him one.
Since that date their programme may have accelerated or, for perfectly good reasons, they may have changed their minds about the order in which areas should be taken. In such circumstances, where an owner-occupier is suffering hardship, the Department will always consider sympathetically an application for an ex-gratia payment. But the general problem cannot be met by ex-gratia payments. Nor would it be right to devise a solution which provided for direct Government intervention. What is at issue is a matter of equity between a lender and a borrower and what their respective rights should be when slum clearance has wiped out the security on which the money was advanced. This is obviously a question for the courts to determine.
At the same time as Parliament in 1956 provided for the supplement it gave the courts jurisdiction to decide what should be done with the outstanding debt in those cases where the supplement was payable. But the owner-occupier who gets the supplement is for that very reason likely to be better able to meet his liabilities, whether arising from a mortgage or a rental purchase agreement, than an owner-occupier who gets only site value or, where a clearance order is made, nothing at all because the site remains in his possession. This is the type of owner-occupier who benefits under the

Bill. He, too, will now have the right to ask the courts to adjudicate on what should happen to any remaining debt. The right will not be limited to owner-occupiers affected by orders made in the future. Any owner-occupier whose house has been condemned at any time in the past, and who still has liabilities on it to discharge, will be able to take advantage of this provision.
The principles on which the courts already act will be preserved. They must have regard to all the circumstances of each application. In the case of purchase by instalments, they consider whether the money the vendor has had, together with any part of the compensation for the value of the site which falls to be paid him, is enough for the purchaser to have paid. In the case of mortgages, they consider whether the mortgagee knew or ought to have known that he was lending on insufficient security.
Clause 2 now specifically requires the courts to consider, in addition, whether the original purchase price for the house was excessive. A loan may not amount to the bulk of the purchase price, and yet by permitting a transaction to take place at all may have been the cause of a very bad bargain for the purchaser. The provision should help to keep down the price of sub-standard houses by deterring advances which enable poor property to change hands for more than it is worth.
People often lend money for perfectly proper business reasons on property which is later condemned. In other instances money is lent from a personal desire to help a relative or friend to find a home. Lenders in these categories have nothing to fear from the Bill. It is not a borrowers' charter designed to give people an easy way out of commitments they entered into with their eyes open. But it does offer the opportunity of equitable settlements in cases which have caused concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The bulk of the expenditure under the Bill will fall on local authorities. Slum clearance costs normally do so. The continuation of the supplement will keep them higher than they otherwise would have been after the end of this year. It will add to the cost of acquiring slum property and, where houses are cleared but not purchased, it will extend for a


period a payment which authorities have to make only to owners who qualify for the supplement.
It is difficult to estimate what the cost will amount to. There cannot be any precise information about the proportion which owner-occupiers who bought between December, 1950, and December, 1955, form of all owner-occupiers now entitled to the supplement, or about how many houses belonging to them have not yet been included in orders but may be dealt with in time to qualify under the extension of the supplement for those with more than 15 years' possession. Nor is it known how many owners affected by current and confirmed orders will benefit from the change in the date of the entitlement. But samples of orders in different parts of the country have given some guidance on the annual average number of owner-occupiers affected by slum clearance orders in recent years, on what proportion of these owner-occupiers qualifies for the supplement, and on the average size of the supplement. On this basis and on abitrary assumptions about the number of owners who will benefit from the changes in the Bill, it is estimated that the total capital cost to local authorities will be about £3 million.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I think this is a good Bill because it will bring relief to many owner-occupiers who need it badly, but you are now coming to what is a very serious disadvantage.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

Mr. Allaun: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. The time of night is affecting me. My hon. Friend is now coming to the disadvantageous part of the Bill. That is the fact that it is the local authorities who have to bear the whole of the burden and, what is worse, the poorest local authorities, those with the greatest slum clearance to undertake, will have to pay most. When the Bill was first thought of, a year ago—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is more a speech than an intervention. It must be brief.

Mr. Allaun: I am coming to my question immediately, Mr. Speaker. When

I inquired the cost, it was then estimated in some quarters to be about £9 million. My hon. Friend is now suggesting that the cost will be about £3 million. Is he sure that it will be £3 million and not £9 million?

Mr. Mellish: I said earlier that this was based on arbitrary assumptions which we were making and I tried hard to explain how difficult it was to calculate the figure. Certainly it will cost local authorities that much extra. The figure I have given is based on the best estimates available to our experts, and I am advised that it will be about £3 million. However, this is a balance of arguments. There are those hon. Members—and certainly my right hon. Friend is one of them—who believe that when a person loses his home because of slum clearance, we should do everything we can not only to be fair, but to be seen to be fair. I think that that is right. I hope that the Bill will be an indication of my right hon. Friend's determination to associate the Labour Party with those who are owner-occupiers or who are now trying to buy homes. We are anxious to be fair to them. Considering the number of years covered, this is not a high price to pay to remedy what all of us on this side of the House regard as sheer injustice.
As I said, we think that the sum will be about £3 million. This estimate covers both extensions of the supplement to those with not more than 15 years' possession and to those whose houses are included in orders made by 12th December, but not purchased or vacated then. It also relates to all expenditure under the Bill from the time it comes into force until the last payment is made some years ahead.
The cost to the Exchequer cannot be estimated, but it is unlikely to be large. If cleared land is redeveloped for housing, the extra cost involved in continuing the supplement could entitle an authority to a bigger basic subsidy under the arrangements still in force, or to an expensive site subsidy, or a bigger expensive site subsidy. The appropriation of land which has been bought at higher cost because of the extended supplement to a service where relevant expenditure ranks for general grant could result in an increase


in the total sum disbursed by the Exchequer by way of general grant. But these are marginal possibilities to which no figure can be put.
A supplement could become payable under the Bill to the owner-occupier of a house which the Ministry of Transport, or a development corporation, bought com-pulsorily in a new town and which was subject to an unfitness order made by the local authority. But a supplement has never had to be paid in those circumstances under the present provisions and is highly unlikely to occur under the extension.
Rate deficiency grant is the most probable source of increased Exchequer expenditure. However, it is impossible to tell how owner-occupiers who get the supplement under the Bill will be distributed among authorities who are entitled or not entitled to rate deficiency grant. This is the answer to what my hon. Friend was saying about the poorer authorities, because rate deficiency grant may well qualify them for an extra grant from Government sources. Nor can any forecast be made of whether authorities will choose to meet the supplement by outright payments or by borrowing. Their choice will affect the amount of rate deficiency grant to which they may be entitled in any year.
There is nothing in this uncertainty about the amount of Exchequer assistance to authorities which is peculiar to the extension of the supplement. It is the position which has obtained ever since the supplement became payable in 1956, and there is no cause to alter it. The situation is simply that whenever expenditure on the supplement entitles an authority to an increased Exchequer grant or subsidy it will be automatically forthcoming, although the total of these increases cannot be calculated.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would allow me to ask one question before he leaves the subject. In talking about the compensatory payments and telling the House how much they will amount to, is he aware that some authorities bring in this compensation under their housing revenue accounts? Others may include it in some other guise, and there should be some recognition of such

an imposition on housing revenue accounts, where it is so applied, in the present legislation.

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend will know that, so far as we are concerned at the Ministry, he or any other hon. Member can come and talk to us about any difficulty that a local authority may be facing.
I was going to say in conclusion—and I think that these remarks are apt—that there will be those who will say that these supplementary allowances should not continue. There is the definite point of view that they should end on 12th December of this year. But my right hon. Friend was impressed with the remarks in the debate in May of this year, and he felt that a case had been made for the continuation of the grants for another five years.
I have said that that is the end of the story. But it is true that it will cost iocal authorities a good deal more money. However, it is money which will be spent in meeting what is, after all, a grave injustice to some of those who own their own houses. There can be no question of a departure from the general principle. Site value only is paid on those houses genuinely found to be unfit for human habitation if purchased after 1955. That still remains.
I hope that we shall get the co-operation of both sides of the House on the Bill. It is important that it should be on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. There is a great deal of good will in the House, and no one suggests that discussion should be restricted, but I hope that the remarks that I have made will receive the approbation of the House and that the Bill will get a Second Reading, so that it can pass quickly through its final stages and get on to the Statute Book within a week or so.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: It is unfortunate that the Government left the Bill until the eleventh hour before the legislation ran out, and that we had to have it at 11.52 tonight. It is an important Bill and, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has explained, it affects a number of people. Many people have been concerned with it over a period of time, wondering what the Government are going to do about it.
In one major respect, I think that this is a despicably mean little Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum says:
The objects of this Bill are (a) to prolong the rights of certain owner-occupiers to receive supplementary payments up to full market value…
It is quite true that it prolongs those rights to some owner-occupiers, but for others it terminates those rights by not continuing the existing legislation. It terminates the rights of the very people who most deserve the relief given under the Conservative Act of 1956. They are the people who purchased during the war or within five years after the war. They are the people who are now going to be cut out of any right to this supplementary payment, and the people who the Government have singled out, apparently, as being unworthy of receiving fair treatment when their homes are taken from them. That is why I say that it is a despicably mean little Bill.
Is this part of the right hon. Gentleman's National Housing Plan? Let him sleep it off. Is it really part of that plan to whittle down the compensation payable to owner-occupiers who up to the present time have been entitled to market value for their property when it is taken away from them by compulsory purchase? Is it part of the local government review, which I understand is now being undertaken by the right hon. Gentleman, to reduce the rate burden by depriving the individual of certain rights to which he has been entitled? In this case the burden on the rates, if it is so, is being reduced by some of those who at present are entitled to market value for their property being deprived of it in future, and that was not what we understood from debates on the slum clearance law which this Bill seeks to amend.
This is rather an interesting point, because the Joint Parliamentary Secretary raised this question of finance and the expenditure falling on the local authorities. Previously his party, when in Opposition, said that this compensation should be paid out of taxes, and not out of rates, but we look at the Bill and we find that it seeks to amend a part of the Housing Act 1956 by partially extending and partially ending the provisions of that Act relating to slum clearance compensation.
The Housing Act, 1957, was a consolidation Bill, and the part of it to which this Bill refers originated in the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956. When the Conservative Government of that time introduced that Bill, which became the 1956 Act, the Labour Opposition tabled a reasoned Amendment to it,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to this Bill, because it does not provide for any direct Exchequer subsidies towards the payments proposed and so imposes an undue burden on the rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1956; Vol. 550, c. 2186.]
It was very forcibly argued from these benches at that time that the compensation should be paid, not by the ratepayer, but by the taxpayer. This Bill in some respects extends the cases in which compensation is payable, and who is to pay it on this occasion? The answer is, the ratepayer again.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that there may be an increase in some rate deficiency grants, and that there may be a few payments by the Ministry of Transport and by new town development corporations, but where are the direct Exchequer subsidies for which the Labour Party pleaded on the previous occasion? We are told that £3 million will fall on the rates. The last sentence of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
The total extra capital cost to local and other public authorities because of the provisions of the Bill is also difficult to estimate but seems likely to be of the order of £3 million.
The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) said he thought it was £9 million.
Here was a chance for the party opposite, in introducing this Bill, even in this small way, to keep one of its election pledges to transfer the burden on the rates to the Exchequer—only £3 million—but there is not a word about this in the Bill. There were many words about it during the Second Reading of the previous Bill which we are now extending. I have no doubt that the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be answering this debate, and perhaps he will answer this, and I quote from col. 2205 on 28th March:
The Government now have a long record of having done everything they can to starve and squeeze money out of the local authorities, and of taking every step of stinginess they could to hold up, obstruct their work and to do everything at the expense of the ratepayers


… Naturally, when it is said that this is to be paid out of the ratepayers' and not the taxpayers' money, no one will believe that it is because it is not administratively worth bothering about. The Government are doing this for their own good purpose and should pay for it.
Why does not the rule apply to the present Government? They are doing exactly the same thing—making this payable out of the rates. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain this political somersault when he winds up. It is no good his saying that it is only £3 million, which is a small amount, because in the previous column he chided the then Parliamentary Secretary, saying,
The Parliamentary Secretary should have thought of a better reason for trying to dispose of the Amendment than saying that there was only a little amount involved. We really cannot go back to the old argument that the size of the offspring is relevant to its legitimacy." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 2204–5.]
That was a very good phrase—but what about this time? Will the hon. Gentleman explain why on this occasion he has not persuaded his right hon. Friend to produce a Bill which throws this expenditure on the taxpayer?
Now I turn to the main purpose of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I should have thought that the financial side of the Bill was important—and the Parliamentary Secretary spent a good deal of time on it himself, trying to explain away the reason why the Government have decided to keep the liability on the ratepayer.
The main purpose of the Bill is to fix a market value on certain owner-occupiers' houses which have to be cleared away to permit development. Since as long ago as 1919 it has always been recognised that if a house is so unfit that it has to be pulled down and acquired the acquiring authority pays nothing for the bricks and mortar, but only the land. This law is now embodied in Section 29 of the Housing Act, 1957. If the house is subject to a demolition order, or a closing order, each of which are followed by compulsory purchase order, or if it is in a clearance area and a compulsory order follows, the compensation for it is the value of the site cleared of buildings.
In 1919 it may have been that a house was truly a slum if it was so unfit as to be placed under a demolition order, a closing order, or a clearance order, but

standards of fitness have risen since then. There is no denying that. We are not dealing with the sort of property which was a slum in 1919, and the standard of fitness is now statutorily defined under Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957. That a house can be statutorily unfit and yet have a substantial value has been shown again and again in actual cases which have come before local authorities and the Lands Tribunal.
There can be a marked difference in compensation payable for identical houses, one owner-occupied and purchased during the 1939–55 period and the other not so qualified. In the debate on this subject in June I quoted a number of actual cases in which one could test the difference between site value and market value. There was a case in Smethwick of a house with a site value of £30 and a market value of £550; in Pontypool a case of a site value of £28 and a market value of £300, and in Royton a house with a site value of £88 had a market value of £250. There were some very substantial figures. I quoted cases of identical houses in Woolwich where the site value of £150 compared with the market value of £1,150, and a site value of £200 compared with a market value of £1,650. There was the indisputable case at Lewisham of a property site valued at £50, the owner of which managed to prove that he was entitled to market value because he had purchased it in the right period, and he therefore got market value of £975 for it.
I mention these figures again because I want the House to realise that this payment of supplement, both under the existing law and under the law as it will be under this Bill, is not always a question of money being given for bad or worthless property. The value is tested under Part 3 of Schedule 3 of the Housing Act, 1957, which has a specific direction about reduction of value for disrepair, for the house being in bad condition. So there is no question that this supplement is given for something in a bad condition: the house is valued properly on its market value in that condition.
The extent to which the Bill fails to provide market value for those entitled to it under the existing law is shown by the sort of figures which I have quoted. These are the means which the Government are mean enough, under this Bill, to take


away from those who are entitled to them —those people whom they recognised, when they were in Opposition, as deserving of Parliament's compassion in this respect.
May I press this a little further and compare the law as it is now, under the 1957 Act, and the law as it will be if the Government have their way and get the Bill through unamended. The person who is now entitled to compensation has to prove that he bought his house since August, 1939 and before 13th December, 1955. He has to show that the house was occupied on the latter date either by himself or his family. He has to show that he still has an interest in it when it is taken away from him by compulsory acquisition, and, as the law is at the moment, he has to show that it was purchased from him before 13th December next.
The Bill slightly improves his position because he will get the market value if the compulsory purchase order was made before 13th December next, no matter whether the property was actually purchased from him or not before that date. In that respect, his position is slightly improved—(An HON. MEMBER:"Slightly?"] I would not say that it was greatly improved, because there were many who construed the previous Act as having exactly that effect, and this Bill clears up a point of law, perhaps.
But, after 13th December, many will be deprived of their right to market value. A person entitled to market value in future will have to show, first, two similar qualifications to these which were necessary before—that he was the owner-occupier on 13th December, 1955, and that he still has an interest now, when the property is taken away from him— but he will now have to show that he purchased the house from 13th December, 1950, to 12th December, 1955, inclusive, and that the C.P.O. was made within 15 years of his purchase of the house.
To start with, that means that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will run out in 1970. I am not so worried about that—my right hon. Friends who will be in Government then can look after that—but what is totally wrong about the Bill as it stands is that it cuts out those who purchased

before 1950, those who purchased during the war, and those who purchased in a period of five years after the end of the war. Yet those were the people for whom the 1956 Act was passed.
In the Second Reading debate on the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Bill, 1956, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said:
Thousands of people, not least ex-Service men, desperate somehow to get a home, have paid considerable sums for the freehold or the long lease of houses of this kind, either ignoring or else being ignorant of the prospect that they stood to be acquired in the course of time at site value only. It was all the easier for people so situated to overlook the risk or to take it because, for about 15 years after the outbreak of the war, there virtually was no slum clearance going on".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 2162.]
In later speeches from the Opposition benches, it was recognised that it was both those who purchased during the war and those who purchased after the war who were to get the benefit of this supplementary payment.
So the Bill deprives the family who, perhaps, were bombed out during the war and were forced to find other accommodation in these twilight areas, perhaps just the most deserving and patriotic people who stuck it out in the cities and bought their houses there in order to carry on essential services during wartime. The Bill deprives the man who came back from the war and purchased one of these houses with his gratuity within the five years after the war when the Labour Government found it impossible to make much headway in reducing the housing shortage. Surely, a straight extension of the existing legislation would have avoided this attack on the very people whose hardship and suffering that legislation was intended to relieve.
It is true that, when the previous Bill became law, it was drafted to last only ten years. I think that that was right at the time. Legislation of this kind should come back for the House to consider it periodically. Parliament should have the opportunity of seeing how it has worked in practice. But there is no cause now to let this legislation lapse, and, if it does lapse, these people for whom the original law was passed will lose the benefit.
I have no criticism of Clause 2 at this stage. I agree with the principle. I think it right that the county court should have power to adjust mortgage liabilities, roughly speaking, in all site value cases. I confess that I do not know why this was not in the original Bill. It seems the obvious case in which hardship will arise, when a man gets only site value and he does not receive the supplementary payment. There should be a power to put the mortgage liabilities right in such cases. But why spoil that improvement in a beneficial Clause with a cheeseparing provision about compensation in Clause 1?
I hope that we shall be able to put the Bill right. It is, at least, an extension of some beneficial legislation, and, if we can put it right to the point of still giving the benefit to those for whom the original legislation was intended, it will be a good Bill.

12.39 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: From these benches, I warmly welcome the Bill. It is not without significance that this is the first domestic Measure of this Session, and it deals with owner-occupiers. I want the House to note the number of hon. Members present on this side and the few on the benches opposite.
The Bill will be of great benefit to many thousands of people in my constituency of Bolton and elsewhere. It is designed to help those people who, in time of acute housing shortage, struggled—and I emphasise "struggled"—to buy their own homes. Often they had to give up luxuries to find the money. More often, particularly in Lancashire, the wives went to work and the whole of their earnings were banked to provide the deposit or help meet the mortgage repayments. They are the people we are endeavouring to help in this, the first domestic Measure of the new Session.
The houses about which I am speaking can be seen in any northern town. One can tell them at once by their new front doors, the way they have been improved inside, bathrooms and so on, new grates and other modern extras. These improvements show that to the people who bought or are buying these houses they are not just old houses but the cherished homes of their owner-occupiers. Nevertheless, many of these houses are 70, 80 and even

more years old. Local authorities must have regard to urban renewal. The dilemma is that progressive families wish to buy their homes and make them into little palaces while progressive local authorities wish to undertake urban renewal, remembering that urban renewal is essential. A town cannot stand still. If it does, it dies. And most of these houses are to be found in the centres of such towns.
Although the owners of these houses do the best they can, many of the properties are damp. The houses are pushed up close together and, therefore, local authorities must do something about it. The Bill before us will help these people, many of them in Bolton and elsewhere in the north of England. In this connection, I again draw attention to the number of hon. Members present on this side of the Committee. Among them are hon. Members representing such places as Oldham, Salford, Manchester, Liverpool and other industrial constituencies.
Having welcomed the Bill, I come to the remarks of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), and I will agree with one of his statements and disagree with another. To disagree first; in 1955-56 it was anticipated by Parliament that very many of these slum houses would be cleared by 1965. We have reached 1965, but they have not been cleared. That is the situation because the previous Government prevented local authorities from building more council houses. When that Government introduced credit squeezes they applied them indiscriminately, regardless of region or need. When my right hon. Friends find it necessary to adjust the economy they arrange things so that the measures do not apply to everything which every progressive local authority is doing.
The hon. Member for Crosby spoke of rates. While I do not know what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say in reply, it should be remembered that the present Government are inquiring into the whole question of rates, Exchequer subsidies and rating relief. Indeed, many of the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Crosby, and perhaps to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) will be allayed when the Bill mentioned in the Gracious Speech comes forward.
I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby that it would have been simpler for the Schedule to the 1957 Act to have been extended for a period of five years. This Measure can cause confusion in some people's minds. The hon. Member for Crosby has mentioned those people who bought before 1950. I have cases in mind of people who bought after 1950, but it is now known that the clearance will not affect them until, perhaps, 1968 or 1969. People who bought in 1951 or 1952 must feel a great grievance with this Measure, because although, in general, it allays the fears of those who own their own houses, it will not meet the case of the persons who bought after 1950 but whose houses are not to be cleared until some time late in the 'sixties.
The hon. Member did not deal at any length with Clause 2, except to agree with it. This Clause is very important. It means that when a house has to be cleared, if the owner-occupier has a mortgage on it he can leave the house without having a debt round his neck. People like that can apply to the county court and have a very substantial worry dealt with. I welcome the fact that the court will have regard to whether the price paid was excessive.
One practice that has gone on since 1955, in particular. It relates to the person who had a house that he often acquired after 1957, when he got the tenant out who was previously there— due to another Act passed by the previous Government. Having got the house, he found he could not sell it on the open market, because when the prospective purchaser went to the solicitor or surveyor he was told that it might be subject to a clearance scheme. As a result, the vendor could not get what was often an excessive price for the property.
He therefore found a prospective purchaser who badly needed a house who had little or no deposit and was willing verbally to agree that he would go into the house and pay so much a week over five, seven or ten years, and at the conclusion of such payments he would be handed the deeds.
The purchaser usually had no idea that the house was within the area of a clear-

ance scheme. Very often he had no legal advice. I have known cases in which the handing over of the deeds was done quite literally. On completion, the vendor of the house merely handed over a bundle of deeds to the purchaser, who only learned when the house was to be acquired that there had been no conveyance to him. It may be said that it is a matter of caveat emptor, that it is the purchaser's duty to make sure about these things, but we are dealing with people who have never purchased a house before and do not know the legal formalities. Many who were cheated by unscrupulous vendors and still have a mortgage will be helped by this Bill, because the county court can take into account such factors as whether or not the price was excessive.
One other slight amendment should be made to this Clause. The Bill should also empower the court to inquire whether the mortgage interest rate was excessive. It should say so specifically. The Second Schedule to the 1957 Housing Act does not specifically mention mortgage interest rate; it incidentally mentions excessive price, but no mortgage interest rate. Another racket developed. Not the building societies, the banks or the local authorities who deal with scrupulous fairness with these matters, but the sharks came in on the fringe and lent money at very excessive interest rates to purchasers who were desperate, interest rates in the region of 9, 10, 12, even 15 per cent., over short periods on mortgages. Those interest rates should be looked into by the courts when the question arises of whether compensation should be paid to the mortgagor as well as the owner-occupier. As well as the mortgage interest rate they often had to pay an excessive survey fee, a procuration fee, an introduction fee and all sorts of rackets designed to extract the maximum amount of money from people most in need at that time.
I hold the view that if a back bencher cannot say what he wants to say in 15 minutes he is either not trying or is trying too hard. This is my last point. Will my right hon. Friend look into the question of the owner-occupier who benefits from the provisions of this Bill by a sum of compensation from the local authority and does not wish to be given a council house by the local authority


but to acquire another small terraced house? I wonder whether a circular could be issued to local authorities asking them to give very favourable consideration to such purchasers. We are dealing in the main with people in their fifties who may find difficulty because of their age in getting a mortgage from a building society. Would the local authorities consider favourably advances under the Housing Acts or the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act because they know that such people have a large capital sum or are a good risk because they have already bought a house before the Act comes into operation?
I welcome the Bill and hope that it will be given a speedy passage. It is a very significant first domestic Bill for this House to pass in this Session and I therefore welcome it.

12.53 a.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I was particularly pleased when I saw this Bill laid before us—unheralded I think it was—but my pleasure rather drained away the more I studied it and, after my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) had finished with it, I could find little in it for satisfaction.
I echo what the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said about it being all very well to talk about caveat emptor, but the sort of people we are talking about are the sort of emptors who are less likely to be cave. This matter comprises many pitfalls. I have been very much concerned with a case which when I first looked at the Bill I hoped would fall within its scope, but it does not. It relates to people who bought just after the period for which the 1956 Slum Clearance Act provided special treatment. I am not concerned with what is really slum property. I can see very good arguments for not obliging local authorities to shell out vast sums by way of compensation for property which really is slum property. What I am concerned with are the type of houses which elderly people with very modest savings can afford to buy. These are precisely the sort of houses which it is only too easy and only too tempting for a local authority to have declared unfit.
In a debate last Session on a Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby drew attention to the various ways in which it was possible for a local authority to have a house declared unfit. A large number of faults can be found with a house. It needs only one of them for the whole house to be declared unfit.
The case with which I have been concerned is a house which certainly is damp. To the couple who bought it, it was their idea of a haven in which to end their days. It had ninety feet of garden. It looked out over playing fields. It seemed in every way just the sort of place in which they could live for the rest of their lives. They made inquiries of the local authority. They were told that there was no question of the house being demolished for slum clearance and that the local authority had no immediate plans for redeveloping the area. They were told that in twenty years' time the thing might look very different, but after all they were over 60 at that time and they thought that if they had twenty years there they should be doing very well.
Less than five years later the local authority revised its plans and the house, bought three weeks after 13th December, 1955, which was the closing date under the 1956 Act, came into the local authority's next redevelopment scheme. My local authority—the Slough Borough Council, Labour-controlled—did its best to help this couple. It looked at the Act. It thought that under the Act it could have authority to make an ex gratia payment. The couple paid £600 for the house. They were offered £150 site value. Slough Borough Council thought it could put it up another £150, but this required the Minister's consent. The Minister considered the case. I am not criticising him. The Act did not allow him to authorise the ex gratia payment, because this quite clearly fell outside the period covered by the 1956 Act.
So I hoped when the Bill appeared that it would deal with the very specific cases of hardship which arise. I emphasise that these are not slum houses. These are decent terrace houses lacking in the latest amenities, lacking damp courses, as most


houses of that date do, but very tolerable places for old people to end their days in.
I am not concerned just with the injustice which is done to people in this way, but also with the fact that this sort of thing discourages people from spending their money on housing themselves. One thing above all others which we should be doing is to encourage people to spend their money on housing themselves, because the more of the resources of individuals which go into the purchase of housing the better chance we have of coming to the end of our present interminable housing crisis.

Mr. Frank Allaun: We all sympathise with the couple mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. They lost £500 less £150, that is, £350, in 15 years. Is that an excessive loss when they would have had to pay a high rent in that area in any case?

Sir A. Meyer: They would have lost £450. They have not lost it yet. The house is still standing. It can be argued, as indeed the Minister said in a letter to me, that, after all, they had had 15 years' occupation of the house, but that is a difficult argument to put to somebody who is both losing his home, in which he wants to remain, and is faced with the prospect of not being able to afford to buy another one with the compensation he is getting and with having to live in a council house which is the last thing he wants to do. He would not have put money aside in the first place to purchase the house if he had wanted to live in a council house. I am not suggesting that he will be put out on the street in total misery but he had found a perfectly decent house and is now forced to turn out.
If he had been a wily chap he could have done what is done in certain cases. I was told of a Birmingham lady who was in this sort of situation. As a solicitor pointed out in a letter to me, if she could have spent £500 in doing up the house she could have claimed it was cheaper to have it declared fit for human habitation. The full market value would have been paid. She would have received £1,500 more. A sum of £500 would have been spent on repair and redecora-tion and the house would have been pulled down the next day.
Anybody who can afford to spend money on making a house fit for human habitation gets full market value—and there is a vast difference between site value and market value—and the house is pulled down the next day. This does not seem to me to be a sensible way to go about it. I hope that we shall have the Bill sufficiently amended so that owner-occupiers can have full market value for houses which are not slum property in which they want to go on living. I hope at a later stage to produce an Amendment to that effect.

1.8 a.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: We on this side of the House welcome the Bill. It has manifest advantages, but I was a little disappointed with the lack of flexibility in the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's introductory speech. I believe that more flexibility must be shown in Committee. I say this because I hope later to comment on a point made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) which is worthy of consideration.
The local authority in my area is in the midst of this problem, with 14,000 to 15,000 houses to be tackled, which will take another 20 years. Against that background I and the local authority welcome the administrative tidying up which will be done by the Bill on the question of date of purchase. I am delighted that that has now been put beyond a per-adventure. I am glad also that the supplementary compensation is being continued in principle but I should like to address myself quickly and firmly to two outstanding points.
The first is the question of an easement in respect of the existing mortgages on some of these properties, and in the main those concerned are poor but thrifty people. If there is an application to the court and the court makes an easement, where will the financial easement fall? The easement will be in favour of the person paying the mortgage, but at whose expense? If it is at the expense of reputable building societies—not the type my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) talked about— then these people who, through their thrift, are trying to buy houses in these lower values will get little or no encouragement from orthodox building societies, who will have been caught by a fair


decision by the court in such circumstances. If the effect is as I fear, the Bill will not have happy consequences for thousands of people in towns such as Oldham, many of whom want to buy what some people would call twilight houses. These are terraced houses in which the ordinary man or woman can see 15 to 25 years' life, given good husbandry. If, as an indirect result of this easement, building societies become more cautious in dealing with such people, the Bill will not have a happy effect. I want to be satisfied on this point.
The main reason that I felt that the Parliamentary Secretary was not flexible lies in the fact that I am not wedded to the date of 1955. In some northern towns honest, decent but humble people in the last few years have bought—or are still having to buy—small properties for sums such as £400 to £700. They have managed to make them habitable and comfortable, although by my standards they are likely to be pulled down in due course. Because of the date 1955, they will get nothing under the Bill.
The Bill seems to rest on the belief that we shall have solved our slum clearance problems in the next five years, but we shall certainly not have done so in many areas of Lancashire. A local authority may start the slum clearance process through its health inspector this month, but it may be three to five years before the stage of an order is reached. If an owner of one of these properties asks the town clerk officially for information about how his property will be affected by possible local authority action, he will find that there are three or four years of indecision ahead. People will suffer because of these years of indecision. I am not blaming the local authority or the Minister for this period of indecision, which is often due to a lack of sufficient health inspectors or to objections raised by people about the area in question. It may be due to a need to change priorities in the local authority programme. But the effect is a long period of uncertainty in the minds of people who in the last few years have bought, or who will have to buy, at relatively small figures houses in which they can see, with good husbandry, 15 to 20 years life.
In the absence so far of compelling information to the contrary—and I know that we can defer the issue for five years

—I would like an Amendment to the Bill which would mean a continuity of policy, with some criterion of good husbandry. I am prepared to listen to arguments about those who bought their houses during the war. If the meaning of the Bill, which I had not appreciated, is what the hon. Member for Crosby says it is, some of us should reflect on what improvements can be made at a later stage.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. James Allason: I welcome the sudden conversion of the Labour Party to owner-occupation. I wish it had come in the last Session, when we on this side were fighting for concessions for owner-occupiers who were rigorously excluded from our discussions on the Rent Act.

Mr. Stan Newens: Would the hon. Gentleman give us details of how they were excluded?

Mr. Allason: We raised the question of owner-occupation for the retired. In Committee, on Report and on consideration of Lords Amendments the Government rejected concessions for owner-occupiers on retirement. It was only after considerable pressure that we were able to get special terms for them. The pressure always came from this side of the House.
I noticed that the Minister, replying to last Thursday's debate, said that most of the housing programme should be in favour of the local authorities and then suddenly remembered, at the end of his speech, the owner-occupier. I am delighted to hear that this represents the Labour Party's new policy.
I also welcome its concern about rates. But it is not new. Both sides have been worried about this aspect for years. After what we have heard tonight, I would like to know that a great deal of help will be given to local authorities and I hope that it will be effective in 1966-67 and not 1967-68, which is what I fear will be the case.
What is the philosophy behind the 15-year period? If a man has enjoyed possession of a house for 15 years, is that regarded as long enough for him to have enjoyed the value of the purchase price so that he should not receive any supplement over and above the site value? It means a considerable difference between


site value and market value. If the 15-year period is up, the owner loses that difference. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) made a substantial case for the final period up to December, 1955, being waived. It seems that anyone who buys a house after that time, having had a search and having found that the house has a clean bill of health from the local authority and then finding that the house comes under clearance order, should have something more than site value, even though the house may not be up to the full standard of fitness. Compensation could be the market value less the cost of bringing the house up to the necessary standard of fitness to qualify it for market value rather than, as in the example my hon. Friend gave, the owner having to pay £500 in order to get an additional £1,500 compensation.
I tried to follow the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of Clause 2. He pursued the example of what would happen when a supplement was being paid. I would be grateful for an explanation of what would happen in the adjudication by the courts between the borrower and the lender where there was to be no supplement. Let us suppose that the lender is the local authority. If the judge decides that the mortgage shall be cancelled, then the local authority loses its 8 per cent. But let us suppose that the lender is a building society or an individual. Having entered into a transaction in good faith, is the individual to lose his money? We are agreed that cases of bad faith and excessive value are ruled out, but these are cases of good faith.
This is presumably retrospective legislation and it is intended to be an intervention in a transaction which took place some time previously. When the transaction comes to fruition, it is negatived by an order of the court. It seems to be a strange doctrine that there is such interference. I appreciate that there is a great need to do it, but I doubt whether the loss should fall on the perfectly innocent individual or building society who entered into a bona fide transaction quite honestly and who then found, because of the action of the local authority, that he was to be put at a loss. It may be that I misunderstood the explanation of the

Parliamentary Secretary, but he did not address himself to the case where there was no supplement.

Mr. Oakes: That is the position at the moment and all the Bill does is to extend it to other categories of owner-occupiers. Under paragraph (5) of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act a person can go to the county court, and the Bill extends it further.

Mr. Allason: This is extending it very considerably and we are dealing with the whole principle. This will be a new Act to deal with the whole problem and not just an extension of what has been done in the past. It is something quite new and we should look at the principles afresh to see whether they are just. On the information I have had tonight, I doubt whether justice lies behind the Bill.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: As the Member for a constituency where one of the largest slum clearance orders London has seen for a long time is now the subject of a public inquiry, I welcome the Bill very much. As perhaps the local leading light in initiating this current slum clearance order, it has been borne in on me for some time that genuine hardship was bound to be created by the introduction of very progressive and sound social policies in Kilburn, an area which for the most part should have been slum cleared 30 years ago instead of being left until this late date.
In recent years a growing number of people have been buying properties in which to live in an area recognised to be suffering from an acute housing shortage. This has been creating a situation which ten or fifteen years ago, certainly before the war, would have been unlikely to arise to any degree, a situation in which there is about 8 per cent. owner-occupation in the properties covered by the order now under inquiry. Over the past year or 18 months, I have contacted a number if not most of these people and I have been worried about those who while not in their 50's are probably in their 20's or 30's and who, but for the Bill, would be saddled with mortgages of between £1,500 and £2,500, some of them having purchased their houses perhaps only months before the local authority, following much discussion and consideration, decided to initiate the necessary procedures


through its health department to establish a slum clearance order application.
We shall find this sort of situation increasingly in this and similar areas as over the years we proceed to embark on slum clearance and the redevelopment of areas, a process which, I hope, will be speeded up as it needs to be speeded up. Because of changing financial circumstances and the general economic background to incomes, as well as the pressures of acute housing shortages in most of London, worse in some areas like mine than in others, there will be growing numbers of people who have bought properties in rapidly deteriorating areas. We are not dealing with a static situation and we should have to deal with growing problems of hardship and anxiety and even suffering if it were not for the Bill.
However, in view of what is going on in my own area, I seek the general assurance that, however amended in detail, the Bill will benefit the owner-occupiers of properties now subject to slum clearance orders initiated before the Bill was introduced and which may be shortly implemented possibly, although not certainly, before the Bill becomes operative. This will be very important in the present situation in my area, as well as in what I hope will be schemes in the future.
Hon. Members have referred to the situation which arises in the twilight areas of our cities where slum clearance is being considered or, possibly, where there are town planning procedures for comprehensive redevelopment well ahead of the actual dates on which action will be formally declared by the local authority. It is expecting too much of the Bill to think that it should be able to deal with these important problems.
Since the point has been raised, I want to take the opportunity of expressing the hope that the kinds of studies and consideration that are being given to the problem by the Ministry will result in speedy action being taken. There is a special committee sitting at the moment on slum clearance definition, and recently we have had the report of the Housing Advisory Committee on the future of development plans, in which there was considerable discussion about the idea of establishing action areas. I hope that there will be speedy action at Ministerial and Parliamentary level in putting

into effect some of the recommendations to speed up and tighten up the methods used for slum clearance. and redevelopment in our cities.
Tonight, we are discussing a Measure which is going to help considerably the small person evicted by large redevelopment schemes coming under slum clearance. But we must not overlook the fact that the main issue is getting the twilight areas of our cities pulled down and rebuilt as we would wish to see them rebuilt, and create better conditions generally.
One of the problems involved here is that which affects many people moving into these districts during the period of uncertainty—that period of time before slum clearance gets under way- -and the way that can be dealt with is by speeding up and tightening up the methods that local authorities use to establish slum clearance areas in our cities. It will improve the position for the local authority, because it will mean a better and more economic method of using its staff. It will improve the general housing conditions of people living in the twilight areas, because it will speed up the redevelopment of those areas. At the same time, it will clarify the position for many people moving into those areas who are tempted sometimes to go into house purchase in a twilight area because of the acute housing problems in our cities.
I believe that the kind of Bill that we have before us tonight is something to be welcomed. It may be that there are detailed points which we have to consider and tighten up in Committee, though some of the points about which we have heard tonight show a misreading of the Bill, with which, no doubt, the Minister will deal when he comes to reply. At the same time, it must be seen against the background of the urgeut need to speed up redevelopment. We must press ahead with it, as we are trying to do in my own area, but, at the same time, as the Government are trying to do in the Bill, we must help the little person who because of the housing shortage has saddled himself with a debt which will otherwise hang round his neck as a result of a slum clearance order.
Some parts of the speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) could only be described as rather petulant. We have here an attempt


by the Government to do something to help the little man, but most of the comments that we have had from the hon. Member for Crosby—and the same can be said, to some extent, of other hon. Members on his side—have been petty criticisms to try and create an impression to the contrary, and that we are not helping people in need but making things worse for them.
What kind of debate on an important and valuable domestic Measure is that? As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, perhaps it is underlined by the fact that we have had quite a large number of hon. Members on this side sitting in on the debate, and one can see how many hon. Members we have had on the other side.
All welcome to the Bill, and let us get it through the House as quickly as possible.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Stan Newens: Like my hon. Friends who have already spoken from this side, I rise to welcome the Bill.
In view of the fact that the previous Act expired this year, I find it somewhat hypocritical to refer to the Bill in the terms which were used by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). It seems almost as if hon. Gentlemen opposite are disappointed that the Bill has been introduced, since it deals with problems which are of very great importance to many people up and down the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) referred to the people who are troubled by this problem in the large industrial towns. I represent a county constituency which includes a new town, and I should like to point cut that this problem is one which also affects part of my constituency, in particular the town of Waltham Abbey. It might seem charming to those who pass through it, but in the back streets there are a number of slums which are likely to be cleared during the next few years, and during the course of the last few months a number of my constituents have approached me with precisely the sort of problem with which the Bill seeks to deal.
I think that the Bill shows how very much the Labour Government are concerned about the problems of the owner-

occupier, and the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill so early in the Session should kill once and for all the myth which hon. Gentlemen opposite have sought to propagate, that we on this side of the House are not concerned about owner-occupiers. I have had discussions with people who are faced with problems of this sort, and I am delighted that the Government have introduced ihis Bill at this stage in the Session.
Having said that, I should like to make a plea for those owner-occupiers who bought their houses during the period 1939 to 1950. A number of hon. Members have referred to this. I understand that these people will not be entitled to the supplemental payment up to the full market value. I consider this aspect of the Bill to be unfair, because there may be two owners living next door to one another, one of whom purchased his house in 1949, before the effective date, and the other who purchased his house in 1950, subsequent to the effective date. Because of that they will be accorded different treatment, and this will leave the person who does not qualify for the supplemental payment with a considerable sense of injustice.
I hope that my hon. Friend will explain the reason for this arbitrary line. How does he justify this division which will subject people who bought their properties before 1950 to a considerable amount of what appears to be injustice? Many of these people are now old-age pensioners. Many of them are able to manage on a fixed income at the moment. They may have spent vast sums of money on improving their houses even though the houses adjoining their properties are not in such good condition.
If these people are rehoused in other property for which they have to pay a comparatively high rent, they may have to have recourse to National Assistance. I realise that National Assistance is a right to which we expect everyone in need to be entitled, but many old people are reluctant to have recourse to it, and therefore, with this in mind, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the problem presented by those who purchased their property during the period 1939 to 1950.
I realise that they have had more than 15 years' use of their houses, and in that respect they may be said to have


recovered what they originally laid out, but at the same time there will be a considerable sense of injustice in these cases. Therefore, while I welcome the Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend will review this aspect of the problem and see whether anything can be done to help the people to whom I have referred.

1.35 a.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Despite the inconvenient hour at which the exigencies of the Government programme have compelled us to discuss a Measure dealing with important matters, which is something that hon. Members on both sides of the House, certainly those who have sat through this debate will regret, I think that we have had a very helpful discussion.
The Ministerial contingent on the Treasury Bench will agree that there has been a widely expressed feeling on both sides of the House that the Bill still plainly does not go far enough. I hope that that point has been noted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because at one moment during the debate, of the three Ministers so courteously representing their Department simultaneously on the Treasury Bench two were following the debate with their eyes closed. [AN HON. MEMBER: "They were concentrating."] That was the explanation that I was going to put forward to the House, in case some hon. Member present should draw some other and less flattering conclusion.
The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) suggested that some hon. Members on this side were disappointed by the introduction of this Bill. The hon. Member should study the history of the matter. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) who introduced the subject into this Parliament when he introduced a Private Members' Bill towards the end of May. Hon. Members present during the debate on that Bill will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and myself both pressed the Parliamentary Secretary to take action in view of the fact that 13th December—the date when the present provisions cease to operate—was drawing near. And it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who, at Bristol, two or three weeks ago—strongly

pressed the Government to take action. So there is no question that my hon. Friends are extremely anxious for action to be taken on this matter.
That being so, I suppose that in criticising this Measure we shall be charged with looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Mr. Mellish: Hear, hear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I see that I have the Parliamentary Secretary with me. He has been awakened.

Mr. Mellish: I am not tired, but when the right hon. Gentleman is speaking it is impossible to go to sleep, anyway.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has had the privilege of listening to me only for about three minutes. We are charged with looking a gift horse in the mouth, but when the animal's teeth are riddled with dental caries, which the Minister of Health is attempting to cure by introducing fluoride into the water system, it is necessary to draw attention to it.
The first and most obvious restriction is the limited number of people to whom the Bill will apply. The real human problem that lies behind this Bill is the fact that we are here concerned with people who, as a matter of definition, are losing their homes. They almost certainly are not very good or very nice homes, but they are these people's homes and they have been in them for many years. What a person to whom that happens really wants is compensation which will enable him to start again in another home and in many cases a home that he owns.
The people concerned are, as a matter of definition, owner-occupiers. They plainly want to be people who continue to live in their own homes, and it is therefore extremely important that the compensation which they receive should be on a basis and on a scale which will enable them, if they wish, to set up again as owner-occupiers. It is not sufficient, in many cases, for them simply to be able to take advantage of a local authority tenancy which, generally speaking, is a condition of the Minister's granting permission for the slum clearance scheme to proceed at all.
In those circumstances, it is very difficult to see what is the philosophy behind the 15-year limit. The hon. Member for


Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), in the course of an admirable speech, said that the purpose of the Bill was to help people who had bought their homes at a time of acute housing shortage. But, of course, the limitation, the fact that this gives benefit only to those who bought their homes between 1950 and 1955, and the fact that it excludes any help for those who bought their homes between 1939 and 1950, means that it gives no help at all to those who bought at the time of the most acute housing shortage.
That must be true, unless it is suggested that the first Labour Government not only failed, as they did, to make much contribution to the housing problem but actually left matters worse when they left office than when they came to office. Otherwise, it follows that it was those who bought their homes between, in particular, 1945 and 1950—who are excluded from the Bill—who bought their homes at the time of that most acute housing shortage, to which the hon. Member for Bolton, West has so properly referred.
Therefore, we must press the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why it is that the benefit of market value in the case of claims after 13th December this year is limited to the people who bought their homes only in the period 1950 to 1955.
On the face of it, this is an unfair discrimination. It has the effect of making the Bill very small in scope and it destroys the hopes of many people who bought their homes during the earlier period, which hopes were raised when it was announced that the Government were, at this almost thirteenth hour— indeed, at this thirteenth and a half hour —bringing forward a Bill to deal with this matter. Certainly, we shall have to press this matter very much further in Committee.
Those are the main comments which I wished to make about Clause 1. But there are other points—I may be interrupted in putting them to the House— in respect of Clause 2. I will say at once, and this is probably all I shall say for a few minutes—

ROYAL ASSENT

1.43 a.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

Southern Rhodesia Act

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE COMPENSATION) BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

1.54 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the House was summoned to attend the Lords Commissioners I had just concluded that part of my comments on the Bill relating to Clause 1. I come now, therefore, to Clause 2.
I am quite sure that the county court is the right tribunal for determining the issue in respect of these mortgages between individual citizens and I have no comment on that part of the effect of Clause 2. On the other hand, we should consider whether it is the right way to handle the matter when the mortgage in question was granted by the local authority which itself has brought forward the clearance order. In such circumstances, I imagine that the House would feel that the right, the inevitable, course is for the mortgage to be waived— and, indeed, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission, that is the current practice.
I am afraid, however, that the introduction of the provisions of Clause 2 will cause local authorities to take to the county court the question of mortgages in these cases. It may well be that with the fear that the district auditor may otherwise order a surcharge, local authorities will feel bound to avail themselves of this procedure. If so, the effect of these provisions in these cases will be to make somewhat less advantageous than at present the position of people who have in good faith taken a mortgage from a local authority and have then found the same local authority introduce a


slum-clearance scheme affecting their property. This is not just an academic question. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a question that arises in a number of cities today. There has been considerable trouble in that respect in the City of Cardiff.
We will therefore want to consider at the next stage of the Bill whether in such cases it is right that the matter should go to the county court; whether, indeed, it is right to carry a provision which will have the effect, inevitably, of the matter being taken to the county court, or whether we should not separate such cases where the mortgagor is the local authority promoting the scheme. As I say, I quite accept the fact that where we are dealing with the question of which of two citizens shall carry the loss, or how the loss should be divided between them, the county court is the right and sensible place to determine the matter.
The point I have made in respect of local authority mortgages ties up with what I thought was the very sensible point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West, that in these cases the Minister should circularise local authorities and asked them to make advances, either under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act or other powers, to people who have been turned out of their house as a result of a slum clearance scheme. That suggestion is well worth pursuing, but it would hardly be possible to do so if there were any question of the person concerned not being able to take on a mortgage for the new house because of having in addition to make payments in respect of the former house that had been demolished. Therefore, if the hon. Member's suggestion is to be followed up, we must press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of mortgages granted by the local authority which is also promoting the slum clearance scheme.
We shall want to examine this Bill further in Committee, but I must repeat that it is a disappointment for us. It only deals with a relatively small fraction of the problem, even of the immediate problem, which is created by the fact that 13th December of this year is the terminal date in respect of schemes under the 1957 Act. It seems to me that even the full extension of the 1957 scheme is not really enough.
It may well be that because of the timetable it is reasonable not to expect the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the whole problem in this Bill, but I very much hope that—if not tonight, at later stages of the Bill—we shall hear from him some indication of his intention to go a great deal further into the general question of compensation in respect in particular of owner-occupied houses. This is a problem which extends beyond slum clearance. Many owner-occupied houses are taken for other public purposes. Perfectly sound houses are taken for redevelopment schemes and for road schemes. In many cases very acute personal problems are created. Even in cases where full market price is paid there are very real problems for the person who has to leave a home which he may have occupied for many years.
Until, I think, 1919 an additional payment of 10 per cent. was made in such cases by way of helping with resettlement expenses. As none of us was in this House in 1919, I do not know why that was dropped. One of my hon. Friends found that that went through the House without any apparent explanation at that remote period. I hope that the fact that tonight we will give our agreement—I hope that we shall—to the Second Reading of this Measure and in Committee we shall seek to amend it within its scope and try to make it more effective for the purpose of carrying forward the purposes of the 1957 Act in full and not in a mutilated form, will not leave the impression that we have really dealt with the problem at a time when hon. Members opposite say—I am glad that they say it—that they favour owner-occupation and at a time when undoubtedly it is the deep belief of my hon. Friends and myself that it is desirable to extend that owner-occupation.
This is a good time for having a further look at the problems which arise in a complicated society such as ours and involve the taking of someone else's property. I am not satisfied that the general market price provisions are in this day and age necessarily right and accurate, but I do not want—indeed, I should incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, if I did —to take that matter further. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer the questions put to him, will seek


to explain the consequences of rescinding the 15-year rule and will give such indication as he can of the answers to the points which my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have sought to make so that when he sits down we can give an unopposed Second Reading to the Bill.

2.3 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that he and his hon. friends were extremely anxious to see this Bill go through. Therefore, I think he will not—any more than I would—grudge the fact that in order to be sure that it goes through we are having the Second Reading at a rather early hour of the morning.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take the fact that we did not object to the somewhat unusual procedure of having the Second Reading moved at 10 minutes to 12 as an indication that he and his right hon. Friend should be encouraged to treat this as a precedent.

Mr. MacColl: I do not think we shall be encouraged to do so, provided that we are able to get some of these Measures through, which we have to tackle and tackle fairly quickly.
Although the right hon. Member said quite a lot about the importance of this Bill and why we have taken so long about it—the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) made the same point— the fact remains that the last Government showed no sign of getting such a Bill through or of doing anything about the former Act. When we were debating the Gurden Bill, the right hon. Member tried to find some reason why and even as late as the summer of 1964 there was no indication of what the fathers of the present Act intended to do about it.
I should like to make clear that we regard this as a stop-gap Bill. It is a Bill which we are basing largely on the 1956 Act and making some improvements on it, but basically we are accepting the approach to that Act at the moment. That does not mean that we are wedded to it or that we think that this is a final

solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) referred to the Sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee under Mrs. Denington's chairmanship which is reviewing the standards of fitness to try to get some kind of uniformity on what we mean by unfit property. That is a very necessary part of the wide approach to the problem of dealing with unfit areas in the future. When that report is issued —I hops it will be issued before long— I hope it will be a starting point.
Hon. Members pointed out that there is nothing in the Bill about Exchequer subsidies and that this would be a burden on the rates. The review of housing subsidies which is likely to be an early piece of legislation and the more general review of local government grants will both have some relevance to this question. Therefore, this is not the final word about the apportionment of the financial burden between the ratepayer and the taxpayer. It is an interim Measure while the more fundamental changes are made.
There is a change in the slum problem. As slum clearance progresses, the standard of property coming under the attentions of the housing authority, although a complicated and long procedure has to be followed before demolition clearance orders are made, is less dramatic than it was in the very early days of slum clearance when there was such a big backlog. As more and more people buy their own houses, the owner-occupier's problems will play a greater part in this. My right hon. Friend is very aware of this and is by no means committed to accepting the present position. He is looking generally at the whole problem created in regard to standards of fitness by the quality of property coming into redevelopment and the special problems of the owner-occupier.
I have been asked throughout the debate what is the philosophy behind the 15-year period, why the Bill applies only to people coming in between 1950 and 1955. The philosophy of it is in the present Act. I cannot do better than quote what was said as recently as 11th November by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) referring to the Bill:
As I understand the proposals, whereas the existing provisions resulting from the 1957 Act give a guaranteed period of 10 years, provided


that the house was bought before the introduction of the Act, for either beneficial occupation or full compensation, the right hon. Gentleman has now made it a period of 15 years. I would not cavil at that, and, in fact, I think that I am probably the author of the idea."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 433.]
No doubt that is why the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South has been hurriedly removed to the back benches, so that he may not compromise the cogency of the doctrine which is at present being expounded by the Opposition Front Bench. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman. It is only fair to say that he went on in that speech to make precisely the point that we have been making, that we have got to look at the problem of owner-occupation and of the kind of property which will come up for demolition in the future. He was making the same point that my right hon. Friend is very conscious of. I have never found any evidence that the Act that we are now finishing was something intended to be renewed automatically every 10 years. As far as I can find out, nothing was said in debate to suggest that that was the case. All the evidence was that this was intended to be something once and for all.
If hon. Members look at the terminal dates they will find that the first one was 1939 when, with the war, the whole slum clearance programme finished. The other date was 1955 when the programme began again. The theory was that people in that period who bought property for owner-occupation could not reasonably be said to expect that they could be caught in a slum-clearance programme. After that date it was reasonable to expect that they should realise that this was a risk which they might have to meet. The effect of the Act was that if one bought property earlier in that period one might have 25 years' occupation of the property. If one bought at the end of the period one would not have more than 10 years' occupation, from 1955 to 1965. We have therefore made a substantial improvement inasmuch as we guarantee that people should have 15 years' occupation, whereas under the existing Act the people at the lower end of the scale were getting less than 15 years.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that under this Measure he is giving abso-

lutely nothing to anybody who bought a house before 1950?

Mr. MacColl: I have tried to explain the philosophy behind the right hon. Gentleman's own Act. It was, as I quoted the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, that one took 10 years as being a reasonable period of enjoyment of the house. If one had had the house before 1955 one had had it for over 10 years and therefore one came out of the provision. What we are now saying is that all these people should have at least 15 years and we are extending the law to ensure that everybody who comes under the legislation will get 15 years' occupation. We are therefore very much improving the service offered to those affected.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Only for aminority.

Mr. MacColl: It is early in the morning and I do not want to spend too much time with the right hon. Gentleman, but he does not seem to have got the point yet. It is that everybody has at least 15 years' enjoyment of the house.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Obviously if anyone has had 15 years' occupation, even the hon. Gentleman cannot take it from him. The point which I make is that the hon. Gentleman is giving something extra only to those who bought their houses after 1950.

Mr. MacColl: All the people who will be getting something under the new Measure will be people who have not had 15 years' enjoyment of their house. In other words, everybody will be brought up to the minimum standard of having 15 years.

Sir A. Meyer: The hon. Gentleman keeps on saying "everybody", but those who purchased after 13th December, 1955, will get very much less than 15 years.

Mr. MacColl: I have already dealt with them. They are the people who will come under the other test—that they acquired the property after the slum-clearance programme began again. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) to say that that is a silly


argument, but it was an argument advocated with great skill and clarity by no less a person than the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). We know that he is not always sounding the keynote of the Conservative Party, but in this case he had the support in the Division Lobby and elsewhere of his party. No one who knows the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, or the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) who was Minister at the time, will suggest that they blundered into this; they did some clear and careful thinking about it. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South who was in the Department recently, took very much the same view and claimed credit for the principle of 15 years. It is therefore a little out of place for the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames to blame us for it now.
I was asked whether it would be possible, under Clause 2—dealing with mortgages—for the court in looking at the mortgage to take into account the fact that there had been an extortionate rate of interest. I think that the court would be free to exercise discretion in the matter. One of the points which it can look at in reaching a decision about the mortgage is whether there has been a quite unreasonable rate of interest. The court would take that into account in what it decided. The value of the provision is that it gives discretion to the court. We have been in trouble lately about giving discretion to the court, but this is one of the cases in which we do it.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) asked how we had this extraordinary provision that it should be limited only to people who could have the supplement. If he is interested at this hour of the morning, I can tell him that this idea started as an Amendment put down by my noble and learned Friend Lord Mitchison in Committee, supported by my insignificant self. We could do no more than this because of the extraordinarily narrow and thoroughly stupid Money Resolution which the Government had put down. The Government had to alter that Resolution before Report because they could not even amend the Bill as they wanted; they had to take the time of the Committee in altering the Money Resolution. This was a

Government Clause put down to meet the point made by my noble Friend and others in Committee. We can claim a good deal of credit for the Clause, but we had to limit it because of the limits of the Financial Resolution.
We have put into the Bill a mucli more sensible idea. It was pointed out that the people most likely to need this were those who could not get the market value. It raises a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) made: will not it mean that building societies will fight shy of old property because they will be afraid of being caught by Clause 2? This is part of the problem which arises; we must balance the two points. The position formerly was that an owner-occupier might be quite happy to take a council house at a reasonable rent without minding about losing his old house, but then he suddenly found himself sued by the mortgagee for the money which had been advanced to him for buying the house.
We really had to say, "If you are so unwise as to lend money on such precarious security and that security is literally disappearing, the best thing to do is to call it a day and balance the loss to the mortgagee with the fact that the mortgagor is losing the house." It means that there will be reluctance to lend money on old property but one has to balance the two things. While my right hon. Friend acknowledges the value of owner occupation of old property provided it is good and can be preserved, it is not wise for this to be extended into property which runs the risk of being condemned as unfit.
There are cases—the hon. Member for Eton and Slough mentioned one—when local authorities have blown hot and cold. They have said first that they do not intend to make an unfitness order with the result that people have borrowed money, and have then, acting usually in good faith, changed their policy and have declared the houses unfit. In that sort of case, my right hon. Friend is willing to use his power to authorise ex gratia payments. They are difficult things to define but where there is a case for saying that people were misled in good faith by the local authority he is always sympathetic to an application for an ex gratia payment.
The change which the hon. Member for Crosby dismissed as comparatively trivial is rather important. It concerns the date on which the purchase order was made. It will mean that everyone within the order will have a uniform starting date—the date when the order is made. Although the date of purchase may vary with different houses within the same order, the clause makes it clear that everyone within the order will be treated the same whenever the process of purchase is completed.
It also means that, where there has been an order made before this Bill becomes law, even if the finalising of purchase proceedings is not completed until after the present Act has expired and those concerned do not come under this Bill, they will still get the advantage of the present Act. The hon. Member for Crosby, in an adjournment debate recently, complained bitterly that we would not come to the rescue of local authorities which were, he said, bewildered by legal difficulties, but now he has pooh-poohed the whole thing as a triviality.

Mr. Graham Page: The local authorities were confused because of the circular sent out by the Minister saying what this date should be.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman was complaining that it created unfairness because there were various interpretations of the word "purchase". That was in the original Act, but by changing it to the date of the making of the order, we made it quite clear.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. It will help a number of people who need help. It is not a final solution. It is not intended to be. But at any rate it goes further than the Act it succeeds.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Committee Tomorrow.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE COMPENSATION) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 {Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend Part II of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1957 it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the amounts so payable under any other Act which is attributable to amendments of the provisions of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1957 relating to private dwellings.—[Mr. MacColI.]

2.25 a.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon Thames): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, referred to the Money Resolution of a previous measure as "narrow and stupid". I rise to ask whether that definition is apt for this one. I appreciate that what will be in order in Committee is not for me or the Parliamentary Secretary but for you, Sir Samuel, but, none the less, I ask for an indication from the Government whether, in drafting this Money Resolution, it was intended to exclude the possibility of the Committee discussing Amendments to widen the scope of the benefits given under this Measure, in particular to deal with the limitation of the 15-years period which we discussed on Second Reading. In other words, is it the judgment of the Government that this Financial Resolution is drafted so as to exclude Amendments which would extend the scope of the Bill to cover all houses which were covered by the 1957 Measure and not merely those purchased between 1950 and 1955. My own reading of the Resolution, without professional advice, is that it is fairly wide and would not have that effect. Although my name has appeared on as many Money Resolutions as that of most hon. Members, I realise my limitations on this highly technical matter and I would appreciate an assurance from the Government.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColI): I will come to the rescue of the reputation of


the right hon. Gentleman. He was not Financial Secretary when that notorious Money Resolution, which was so shocking, was passed. It was the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke).
I do not want to put ideas into the right hon. Gentleman's head, but I think that it would be surprising if he found that the sort of Amendments which he has in mind to widen the scope of the Bill were out of order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

CONSOLIDATION, &c, BILLS

Lords Message [11th November] communicating the Resolution, That it is desirable that, in the present Session, all Consolidation Bills (whether public or private), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Filch.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

DECEASED SERVICE MEN (REPATRIATION OF BODIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

2.31 a.m.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Waver-tree): From matters of major moment to many, may I turn to one of import to but a few? I only pray that those few may not become many because of what has been debated earlier both in this House and in another place.
In September, a constituent of mine, Sapper David Adams, was killed in Aden. The family wished to bring the body home, but found that it could do so only after much difficulty and at what I believe to be unduly high cost. Because

similar difficulties and costs may be met by other families, I am grateful for my luck in the Ballot and to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy who has answered Questions of mine and said that repatriation is under review.
My own belief is that it does not matter what happens to my body when I die, but there are many who wish to bring back home the body of a loved one who has been killed or who has died on active service. Too often a bereaved family has to make up its mind in a hurry and at present it finds great difficulty, not only in discovering what the cost will be, but, through a sudden decision taken largely on emotion rather than reason, it may incur an unnecessarily high financial burden for years to come.
The Armed Services until recently have had a policy whereby in whatever theatre of operations a man was killed or died there should he be buried in a military cemetery. On 5th March last year my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) pointed out the difficulties of any change in this rule. I believe that we all admire the work of the Imperial War Graves Commission. In many areas of the world its cemeteries are perhaps the only things of beauty.
But some families wish above all for a son or brother or husband to be buried at home. The Adams family had such a wish. It was helped when it appealed to the Ford Motor Company by that company, which at that time was employing another son. To make the proper arrangements with the Ministry of Defence, the company's personnel and welfare department spent no less than 50 man-hours and £100 in telephone and postal charges and general administrative expenses. I believe that to be quite impossible for the average family. But the main cost fell on the Adams family, even though the funeral directors, also constituents of mine, advanced £259 to pay B.O.A.C.'s bill. Incidentally, it costs only £102 for a live person to come from Aden.
There were also various out of pocket expenses. There was the cleaning up of the coffin, which arrived in a bad condition, so that the total undertaker's bill was as much as £358 13s. 9d. But on top of that comes a letter from the Ministry


of Defence F.8 Effects (A.D.), Worcester Road, Droitwich which, after commiserating, demands a further £66 14s. Od. There is an item of £17 10s. for the provision of a coffin. Would that not have been free had Sapper Adams been buried in Aden? Then there are items for the provision of a zinc liner, £9 4s., and associated labour charges, £11 5s. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would be good enough to say what those charges are and whether they could not have been provided by the Armed Services. There is an embalment fee of £26 5s. Why is that so high, when it only costs 12 guineas in Liverpool, and could it not have been done by the R.A.M.C? Finally, there is an item for a health certificate, £2 10s. That, indeed, seems to be an odd name for a certificate to do with death. The total cost was over £425, which is an almost impossible debt for most families, coming on top of the shock of the bereavement.
I understand the problem which arises about what could be done should we be involved in a major war, and I know that many people think that the bringing back of bodies ought to be discouraged. But surely there ought to be some standard charge and a standard procedure that is easily discoverable, especially at a time like the present, in a sort of twilight war.
Times change. In decades gone by we could have been sure that no British cemetery would be altered, be it in Europe or elsewhere, without our permission. Can we now be so sure should we leave territories in Africa or Asia? Are we certain that our Service cemeteries will never be desecrated because of racial hostility, or, even without desecration, that the land will not be put to other use?
Some change of policy has already been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government. In the case of North-West Europe, the next of kin have a choice: firstly, that the body can be flown home at public expense; and, secondly, that two relatives can be flown out for the funeral service, also at public expense. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would be good enough to give the House particulars of the cost of each choice.
Is it not possible to do the same in Aden and in Malaysia? One is told that in a hot climate action has to be agreed on quickly, but is it not possible to have

an embalmer on the war establishment in each theatre? If a body is embalmed for flight to another country, I am told that an incision can be made under the armpit of the deceased and, as with a blood transfusion, a chemical with a formaldehyde base is pumped into the whole arterial system. There is no cutting out of any part of the body, as in times gone by, and, if that is done, discoloration vanishes and the body will keep for many weeks in great heat.
It is placed in a metal casket which is hermetically sealed, and, in turn, that is placed in an ordinary packing case which is padded with a chemically-treated sawdust.
I am told that there are 1,000 em-balmers in this country who can deal with three or four bodies a day, and therefore, although I understand that in a major war immediate repatriation is impossible, in this kind of minor conflict surely something could be done? Freight is considerable at commercial rates, but do not Service aircraft in most weeks fly back from the area of operations, when they are not full, and when they could take coffins at public expense or at much reduced cost?
Other countries do this. The United States of America sends back tens of thousands of bodies, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman has seen the United States Air Force Manual on Mortuary Affairs. The United States is a rich country, but the United Nations send back the Irish in their service. The Australian Army and Air Force send back the bodies of those killed. The Dutch and the Belgians do, too, when there is no general way. and they do so at public expense, yet they have a lower income per head than does Great Britain.
I am not asking for no payment to be made by the family concerned. I am asking that there should be a low standard charge, that it should be easy to find out what this is and what the procedure is, and that the information should be given to the family without any request by that family. At the same time, guidance should be given on choice, and this should be given as soon as possible after the notice of death. Above all, I believe that the procedure should be as simple as possible. This would be no comfort to the bereaved family, but it


could reduce distress and avoid some harrowing letters, and perhaps the Minister will look carefully at this problem.

2.42 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Buxton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) for giving me a little of his time to bring a similar case to the attention of the Under Secretary of State for Defence for the Navy.
This case concerns Private Wallace, a young soldier of 17 in the East Anglia Regiment who was drowned only four days after he arrived in Aden. His parents, who are constituents of mine, were informed by telegram of his death. It happened to be a Sunday morning, and they got on to the welfare services with two requests; first, could they bring their son back to England; secondly, if that was impossible, could they fly out to Aden to attend the military funeral? The answer came back that it was impracticable to bring the body back to England because of climatic conditions, and they were told that it was impossible to fly them out in time to be present at the funeral.
Mr. Wallace, an ex-warrant officer, is a very determined man. He was determined that he would not take "No" for an answer. He arranged passages for himself and his wife, and they arrived in Aden in time to be present for their son's funeral, but he was never told of any embalming service which would have made it possible for his son to be repatriated for burial in this country. Now he is looking into the possibility of re-burying his son in this country if that can be done at a reasonable cost.
I think that there is a strong case for revising Service procedure in this matter. My hon. Friend has mentioned that many other nations do this. Why should not we repatriate those who lose their lives in peacetime in the service of their country? If this service is available for North-West Europe, why cannot it be extended to other theatres? After all, many of the costs would be the same. It is only a question of additional freight. Surely in a case like this, where aeroplanes are going to and fro regularly from most operational theatres, it would be possible, with the help of the embalming ser-

vice so that the body did not have to be despatched immediately, and to avoid the high cost of civil aircraft, to bring them back in Service aircraft?
If a Service man is flown overseas alive, have not his parents or his loved ones the right to ask that his body should be flown back if he should meet with a tragic death in this way? In many cases relatives might be satisfied with burial overseas, in some war cemetery, but where they wish otherwise I do not see that this service should be denied them even if they are willing to pay some of the costs.
Times have changed in the Army since my hon. Friend and I served in it. Twenty years ago life was different. There were many harsh things in the Service, and there was a lot of "bull". There were bare and uncomfortable barrack rooms, and many similar things. But in the modern Army this service should be available to relatives when the most heartrending thing of all takes place— the funeral of a loved one after a fatal casualty.
I am glad that, due to Mr. Wallace's letter to the Queen, the wording of telegrams notifying relatives of fatal casualties may be altered. I ask the Under-Secretary to review the whole procedure. The cost would be negligible considering the fact that few of these casualties occur in peacetime. The Services provide for loved ones to visit the graves at a later date. The cost of this would be saved if the body were repatriated. Let us remember that yesterday was Remembrance Sunday—the time when we commemorate the casualties of two world wars.
In peacetime fatal casualties are fortunately very rare occurrences, and in those circumstances is it not reasonable to ask that when they do occur the best possible treatment should be accorded to those who have been bereaved?

2.47 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): This is a distressing, delicate and extremely difficult subject, but I am none the less very grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Buxton) who has supported him, because they have both highlighted some aspects of what has been


Government policy for some years and is clearly unsatisfactory and distressing to a number of people.
I was disturbed to hear that the hon. Member for Leyton and, to a lesser extent, the hon. Member for Wavertree felt that their constituents had been in some way neglected or churlishly treated by the Ministry of Defence. I have looked at the details of the case which the hon. Member for Leyton has mentioned and I find that what happened was that on Sunday, 4th July, the father of the boy rang up, not unnaturally in very great distress, and asked whether the body of his son could be flown back at public expense. He was told that according to existing rules this could not be done. Subsequently, the father asked whether the parents could be flown to the funeral at public expense, and again he was told that under existing rules this could not be done.
Having stated what the rules were— and I shall refer to them shortly—the duty officers there then did everything possible to find a way to help the hon. Member's constituent—I must not say to find a way round the rules—and quite early on the following morning they managed. to find two places for the father and the mother on a flight that was going out to Aden.
When the father rang through again at 10.20 on the Monday morning, the following day, he was told that this flight was available. He had, using his own initiative, already booked a civilian flight, and in this respect too, the duty officers did everything they could to help him over passports and inoculation, informing Aden that they were arriving and seeing that they were met and looked after at Aden, and, subsequently that they were given a concessionary flight home. Within the rules, I assure the hon. Gentleman, the duty officers concerned did everything they possibly could.
The hon. Member for Wavertree, seemed to have some complaint about the treatment his constituent had had. He mentioned that the Ford Motor Company, who acted very decently and altruistically in this matter and spent a great deal of time and money in making arrangements. I am sad that they should have found it necessary to do so,

but that was not through any fault of the Ministry of Defence. They were told what the procedure was—just one telephone call served to tell them—if the family wanted to bring the body home.
The hon. Member mentioned some of the expenses which were to be charged to his constituent by the Ministry of Defence. He mentioned the coffin, and asked whether the coffin would not have been free if the boy had been buried in Aden. That is exactly the question which I asked myself. He asked about the zinc liner and the embalming fee. If a coffin is coming home with a dead body in it, it has to have a zinc liner. The associated charges which were put in the bill are to do with the hermetic sealing and the extra welding and packing which the airlines insist on.
The health certificate, incidentally, does not refer to the health of the body. It is a question of the health of people who might be in contact with the body and certifies that there is no danger to the health of other people because of the body.
We have had a good look at these charges, some of which puzzled me. We have decided, in this case only—which is exceptional because of the hardship involved—to waive all of them except the health certificate, over which we have no authority. Furthermore—I would stress that this is an exceptional case—the hon. Member knows that there is an interdepartmental committee looking at the whole policy on this subject, and I shall make certain that these points are brought immediately to their notice.
I move now from the details of the case which has been put to more general issues. Both hon. Gentlemen have suggested, hopefully and reasonably, that we should provide an embalming service. This is incredibly difficult. There is virtually no civilian embalming in Aden; only one man does it. There are, of course, doctors, but it is not a doctor's duty to carry out embalming. It is not a doctor's job. They cannot be compelled to do so: some will, some will not.
There is a great deal of danger in embalming in tropical countries if a man has died from a tropical disease. There is no mortician's rate in the Services. There is no embalming service in the


Services and we could not possibly provide one. Supposing we did so in Aden, which is the area with which we are concerned. The two men who were detailed out there would be on continuous overseas service because there is no call for their services at home, and for much of the time they would be completely unemployed. Thank goodness this sort of case does not happen often. So not only in Aden but elsewhere there would be extreme difficulty in providing an official Services' embalming service.
Both hon. Members rightly pointed out that other countries provide an embalming service. The Americans do it, but America has burial customs which are different from ours. Embalming before burial is fairly normal there; it is not here. It is abnormal with us. The Americans have a large civilian service, and it is common practice to embalm, so that it is possible for them to have a Services' embalming service, the men concerned doing some of their work at home and some abroad. But that would not apply to us.
There are the other countries mentioned, Holland, Belgium and Australia, and the United Nations also as regards the Irish troops who, unhappily, were killed on United Nations service. I am not absolutely sure as regards all, but I believe that it is, in fact, the American service which copes with this. I think that that is so, and it might conceivably be possible for us in some theatres, though not in Aden because they are not there, to come to an arrangement with the Americans.
Both hon. Members raised a major point regarding the very high cost of transporting the bodies home. I must say that, on looking at the figures, I am surprised at the cost. But, as things are at present, it is not possible to do it more cheaply. The airlines state what the charge is, and if we bring a body

home in Service transport we have to stick to their charges because it is not an entitlement at the present time and we must not undercut them, if that is the right phrase. This is something I knew nothing whatever about, and that is why I said that I was extremely grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for raising the subject.
The hon. Member for Wavertree spoke of a fear that cemeteries overseas might be desecrated. Of course, there is no guarantee that they will not be, but I found encouraging some words in the 46th Annual Report of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission which has only just been published. The Report states that the newly independent Governments have shown "ready understanding" of this problem and have not hindered the work. So one can hope, without any absolute guarantee, of course, that the same respect will be given to our graves in the future as in the past.
The hon. Gentleman said, and I feel very much with him, that he did not mind what happened to his own body. Neither do I. But it is what some people feel, often very deeply, that matters. I should like to do everything I possibly can to meet the wishes of those other people. In this short outline of the position, I have mentioned the great difficulties I see in regard to embalming. I have mentioned what seemed to me to be some surprising facts about transport. I shall put all the points which have been raised—they are all being considered—to the Inter-Services Committee which is studying the matter now, and I shall make sure that my Ministerial colleagues are very well aware of them. I can make no promises about it, but I assure the House that the whole subject will receive a long and hard look.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock a.m.